Lévy Processes and Stochastic Calculus (Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics)

L´evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN ADVANCED MATHEMATICS

Editorial Board Bela Bollobas, University of Memphis William Fulton, University of Michigan Frances Kirwan, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford Peter Sarnak, Princeton University Barry Simon, California Institute of Technology All the titles listed below can be obtained from good booksellers or from Cambridge University Press. For a complete series listing visit http://publishing.cambridge.org/stm/mathematics/csam 75 76 77 78 82 83 84 85 89 90 91

T. Sheil-Small Complex polynomials C. Voisin Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry, I C. Voisin Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry, II V. Paulsen Completely bounded maps and operator algebras G. Tourlakis Lectures in logic and set theory I G. Tourlakis Lectures in logic and set theory II R. Bailey Association schemes J. Carlson et al. Period mappings and period domains M. C. Golumbic & A. N. Trenk Tolerance graphy L. H. Harper Global methods for combinatorial isoperimetric problems I. Moerdijk & J. Mrˇcun Introduction to foliations and Lie groupoids

L´evy Processes and Stochastic Calculus DAVID APPLEBAUM University of Sheffield

cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832632 © Cambridge University Press 2004 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2004 isbn-13 isbn-10

978-0-511-21656-5 eBook (NetLibrary) 0-511-21656-4 eBook (NetLibrary)

isbn-13 isbn-10

978-0-521-83263-2 hardback 0-521-83263-2 hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

To Jill

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 12 The more we jump – the more we get – if not more quality, then at least more variety. James Gleick Faster

Contents

Preface Overview Notation

page ix xv xxiii

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

L´evy processes Review of measure and probability Infinite divisibility L´evy processes Convolution semigroups of probability measures Some further directions in L´evy processes Notes and further reading Appendix: An exercise in calculus

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Martingales, stopping times and random measures Martingales Stopping times The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures The L´evy–Itˆo decomposition The interlacing construction Semimartingales Notes and further reading Appendix: c`adl`ag functions

70 70 78 86 96 111 115 116 117

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Markov processes, semigroups and generators Markov processes, evolutions and semigroups Semigroups and their generators Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes L p -Markov semigroups

120 120 129 136 148

vii

1 1 20 39 58 63 67 69

viii

Contents

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle Dirichlet forms Notes and further reading Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

156 164 176 176

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Stochastic integration Integrators and integrands Stochastic integration Stochastic integrals based on L´evy processes Itˆo’s formula Notes and further reading

190 190 197 205 218 245

5

Exponential martingales, change of measure and financial applications Stochastic exponentials Exponential martingales Martingale representation theorems Stochastic calculus and mathematical finance Notes and further reading Appendix: Bessel functions

246 247 250 262 267 288 289

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Stochastic differential equations Differential equations and flows Stochastic differential equations – existence and uniqueness Examples of SDEs Stochastic flows, cocycle and Markov properties of SDEs Interlacing for solutions of SDEs Continuity of solution flows to SDEs Solutions of SDEs as Feller processes, the Feynman–Kac formula and martingale problems Marcus canonical equations Notes and further reading

292 293 301 314 319 328 331 337 348 357

References Index of notation Subject index

360 375 379

Preface

The aim of this book is to provide a straightforward and accessible introduction to stochastic integrals and stochastic differential equations driven by L´evy processes. L´evy processes are essentially stochastic processes with stationary and independent increments. Their importance in probability theory stems from the following facts: • they are analogues of random walks in continuous time; • they form special subclasses of both semimartingales and Markov processes for which the analysis is on the one hand much simpler and on the other hand provides valuable guidance for the general case; • they are the simplest examples of random motion whose sample paths are right-continuous and have a number (at most countable) of random jump discontinuities occurring at random times, on each finite time interval. • they include a number of very important processes as special cases, including Brownian motion, the Poisson process, stable and self-decomposable processes and subordinators. Although much of the basic theory was established in the 1930s, recent years have seen a great deal of new theoretical development as well as novel applications in such diverse areas as mathematical finance and quantum field theory. Recent texts that have given systematic expositions of the theory have been Bertoin [36] and Sato [274]. Samorodnitsky and Taqqu [271] is a bible for stable processes and related ideas of self-similarity, while a more applicationsoriented view of the stable world can be found in Uchaikin and Zolotarev [297]. Analytic features of L´evy processes are emphasised in Jacob [148, 149]. A number of new developments in both theory and applications are surveyed in the volume [23].

ix

x

Preface

Stochastic calculus is motivated by the attempt to understand the behaviour of systems whose evolution in time X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) contains both deterministic and random noise components. If X were purely deterministic then three centuries of calculus have taught us that we should seek an infinitesimal description of the way X changes in time by means of a differential equation

d X (t) = F(t, X (t))dt. dt If randomness is also present then the natural generalisation of this is a stochastic differential equation:

d X (t) = F(t, X (t))dt + G(t, X (t))d N (t), where (N (t), t ≥ 0) is a ‘driving noise’. There are many texts that deal with the situation where N (t) is a Brownian motion or, more generally, a continuous semimartingale (see e.g. Karatzas and Shreve [167], Revuz and Yor [260], Kunita [182]). The only volumes that deal systematically with the case of general (not necessarily continuous) semimartingales are Protter [255], Jacod and Shiryaev [151], M´etivier [221] and, more recently, Bichteler [43]; however, all these make heavy demands on the reader in terms of mathematical sophistication. The approach of the current volume is to take N (t) to be a L´evy process (or a process that can be built from a L´evy process in a natural way). This has two distinct advantages. • The mathematical sophistication required is much less than for general semimartingales; nonetheless, anyone wanting to learn the general case will find this a useful first step in which all the key features appear within a simpler framework. • Greater access is given to the theory for those who are only interested in applications involving L´evy processes. The organisation of the book is as follows. Chapter 1 begins with a brief review of measure and probability. We then meet the key notions of infinite divisibility and L´evy processes. The main aim here is to get acquainted with the concepts, so proofs are kept to a minimum. The chapter also serves to provide orientation towards a number of interesting theoretical developments in the subject that are not essential for stochastic calculus. In Chapter 2, we begin by presenting some of the basic ideas behind stochastic calculus, such as filtrations, adapted processes and martingales. The main aim is to give a martingale-based proof of the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition of an arbitrary L´evy process into Brownian and Poisson parts. We then meet

Preface

xi

the important idea of interlacing, whereby the path of a L´evy process is obtained as the almost-sure limit of a sequence of Brownian motions with drift interspersed with jumps of random size appearing at random times. Chapter 3 aims to move beyond L´evy processes to study more general Markov processes and their associated semigroups of linear mappings. We emphasise, however, that the structure of L´evy processes is the paradigm case and this is exhibited both through the Courr`ege formula for the infinitesimal generator of Feller processes and the Beurling–Deny formula for symmetric Dirichlet forms. This chapter is more analytical in flavour than the rest of the book and makes extensive use of the theory of linear operators, particularly those of pseudo-differential type. Readers who lack background in this area can find most of what they need in the chapter appendix. Stochastic integration is developed in Chapter 4. A novel aspect of our approach is that Brownian and Poisson integration are unified using the idea of a martingale-valued measure. At first sight this may strike the reader as technically complicated but, in fact, the assumptions that are imposed ensure that the development remains accessible and straightforward. A highlight of this chapter is the proof of Itˆo’s formula for L´evy-type stochastic integrals. The first part of Chapter 5 deals with a number of useful spin-offs from stochastic integration. Specifically, we study the Dol´eans-Dade stochastic exponential, Girsanov’s theorem and its application to change of measure, the Cameron–Martin formula and the beginnings of analysis in Wiener space and martingale representation theorems. Most of these are important tools in mathematical finance and the latter part of the chapter is devoted to surveying the application of L´evy processes to option pricing, with an emphasis on the specific goal of finding an improvement to the celebrated but flawed Black– Scholes formula generated by Brownian motion. At the time of writing, this area is evolving at a rapid pace and we have been content to concentrate on one approach using hyperbolic L´evy processes that has been rather well developed. We have included, however, a large number of references to alternative models. Finally, in Chapter 6 we study stochastic differential equations driven by L´evy processes. Under general conditions, the solutions of these are Feller processes and so we gain a concrete class of examples of the theory developed in Chapter 3. Solutions also give rise to stochastic flows and hence generate random dynamical systems. The book naturally falls into two parts. The first three chapters develop the fundamentals of L´evy processes with an emphasis on those that are useful in stochastic calculus. The final three chapters develop the stochastic calculus of L´evy processes.

xii

Preface

Each chapter closes with some brief historical remarks and suggestions for further reading. I emphasise that these notes are only indicative; no attempt has been made at a thorough historical account, and in this respect I apologise to any readers who feel that their contribution is unjustly omitted. More thorough historical notes in relation to L´evy processes can be found in the chapter notes to Sato [274], and for stochastic calculus with jumps see those in Protter [255]. This book requires background knowledge of probability and measure theory (such as might be obtained in a final-year undergraduate mathematics honours programme), some facility with real analysis and a smattering of functional analysis (particularly Hilbert spaces). Knowledge of basic complex variable theory and some general topology would also be an advantage, but readers who lack this should be able to read on without too much loss. The book is designed to be suitable for underpinning a taught masters level course or for independent study by first-year graduate students in mathematics and related programmes. Indeed, the two parts would make a nice pair of linked half-year modules. Alternatively, a course could also be built from the core of the book, Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 6. Readers with a specific interest in finance can safely omit Chapter 3 and Section 6.4 onwards, while analysts who wish to deepen their understanding of stochastic representations of semigroups might leave out Chapter 5. A number of exercises of varying difficulty are scattered throughout the text. I have resisted the temptation to include worked solutions, since I believe that the absence of these provides better research training for graduate students. However, anyone having persistent difficulty in solving a problem may contact me by e-mail or otherwise. I began my research career as a mathematical physicist and learned modern probability as part of my education in quantum theory. I would like to express my deepest thanks to my teachers Robin Hudson, K.R. Parthasarathy and Luigi Accardi for helping me to develop the foundations on which later studies have been built. My fascination with L´evy processes began with my attempt to understand their wonderful role in implementing cocycles by means of annihilation, creation and conservation processes associated with the free quantum field, and this can be regarded as the starting point for quantum stochastic calculus. Unfortunately, this topic lies outside the scope of this volume but interested readers can consult Parthasarathy [249], pp. 152–61 or Meyer [226], pp. 120–1. My understanding of the probabilistic properties of L´evy processes has deepened as a result of work in stochastic differential equations with jumps over the past 10 years, and it’s a great pleasure to thank my collaborators Hiroshi Kunita, Serge Cohen, Anne Estrade, Jiang-Lun Wu and my student

Preface

xiii

Fuchang Tang for many joyful and enlightening discussions. I would also like to thank Ren´e Schilling for many valuable conversations concerning topics related to this book. It was he who taught me about the beautiful relationship with pseudo-differential operators, which is described in Chapter 3. Thanks are also due to Jean Jacod for clarifying my understanding of the concept of predictability and to my colleague Tony Sackfield for advice about Bessel functions. Earlier versions of this book were full of errors and misunderstandings and I am enormously indebted to Nick Bingham, Tsukasa Fujiwara, Fehmi ¨ Ozkan and Ren´e Schilling, all of whom devoted the time and energy to read extensively and criticize early drafts. Some very helpful comments were also made by Krishna Athreya, Ole Barndorff-Nielsen, Uwe Franz, Vassili Kolokoltsov, Hiroshi Kunita, Martin Lindsay, Nikolai Leonenko, Carlo Marinelli (particularly with regard to LaTeX) and Ray Streater. Nick Bingham also deserves a special thanks for providing me with a valuable tutorial on English grammar. Many thanks are also due to two anonymous referees employed by Cambridge University Press. The book is greatly enriched thanks to their perceptive observations and insights. In March 2003, I had the pleasure of giving a course, partially based on this book, at the University of Greifswald, as part of a graduate school on quantum independent increment processes. My thanks go to the organisers, Michael Sch¨urmann and Uwe Franz, and all the participants for a number of observations that have improved the manuscript. Many thanks are also due to David Tranah and the staff at Cambridge University Press for their highly professional yet sensitive management of this project. Despite all this invaluable assistance, some errors surely still remain and the author would be grateful to be e-mailed about these at [email protected]. Corrections received after publication will be posted on his website http:// www.scm.ntu.ac.uk/dba/.

Overview

It can be very useful to gain an intuitive feel for the behaviour of L´evy processes and the purpose of this short introduction is to try to develop this. Of necessity, our mathematical approach here is somewhat naive and informal – the structured, rigorous development begins in Chapter 1. Suppose that we are given a probability space (, F, P). A L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) taking values in Rd is essentially a stochastic process having stationary and independent increments; we always assume that X (0) = 0 with probability 1. So: • each X (t) :  → Rd ; • given any selection of distinct time-points 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn , the random vectors X (t1 ), X (t2 ) − X (t1 ), X (t3 ) − X (t2 ), . . . , X (tn ) − X (tn−1 ) are all independent; • given any two distinct times 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, the probability distribution of X (t) − X (s) coincides with that of X (t − s). The key formula in this book from which so much else flows, is the magnificent L´evy–Khintchine formula, which says that any L´evy process has a specific form for its characteristic function. More precisely, for all t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd ,

E(ei(u,X (t)) ) = etη(u)

(0.1)

where


η(u)=i(b,u)− 12 (u,au)+

Rd −{0}



 ei(u,y) − 1 − i(u, y)χ0 0. Note that Berg and Forst [35] adopt the analyst’s convention of using −ψ, which they call ‘negative definite’, rather than the hermitian, conditionally positive definite ψ. Two important convergence results are the following: Theorem 1.1.13 (Glivenko) If φn and φ are the characteristic functions of probability distributions pn and p (respectively), for each n ∈ N, then φn (u) → φ(u) for all u ∈ Rd ⇒ pn → p weakly as n → ∞. Theorem 1.1.14 (L´evy continuity theorem) If (φn , n ∈ N) is a sequence of characteristic functions and there exists a function ψ : Rd → C such that, for all u ∈ Rd , φn (u) → ψ(u) as n → ∞ and ψ is continuous at 0 then ψ is the characteristic function of a probability distribution. Now let X 1 , . . . , X n be a family of random variables all defined on the same probability space. Our final result in this subsection is Theorem 1.1.15 (Kac’s theorem) The random variables X 1 , . . . , X n are independent if and only if







n  E exp i (u j , X j )

= φ X 1 (u 1 ) · · · φ X n (u n )

j=1

for all u 1 , . . . , u n ∈ Rd . 1.1.7 Stochastic processes To model the evolution of chance in time we need the notion of a stochastic process. This is a family of random variables X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) that are all defined on the same probability space. Two stochastic processes X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) and Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) are independent if, for all m, n ∈ N, all 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞ and all

18

L´evy processes

0 ≤ s1 < s2 < · · · < sm < ∞, the σ -algebras σ (X (t1 ), X (t2 ), . . . , X (tn )) and σ (Y (s1 ), Y (s2 ), . . . , Y (sm )) are independent. Similarly, a stochastic process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) and a sub-σ -algebra G are independent if G and σ (X (t1 ), X (t2 ), . . . , X (tn )) are independent for all n ∈ N, 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞. The finite-dimensional distributions of a stochastic process X are the collection of probability measures ( pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn , 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞, n ∈ N) defined on Rdn for each n ∈ N by

pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn (H ) = P((X (t1 ), X (t2 ), . . . , X (tn )) ∈ H ) for each H ∈ B(Rdn ). Let π be a permutation of {1, 2, . . . , n}; then it is clear that, for each H1 , H2 , . . . , Hn ∈ B(Rd ),

pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hn ) = ptπ(1) ,tπ(2) ,...,tπ(n) (Hπ(1) × Hπ(2) × · · · × Hπ(n) );

(1.2)

pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn ,tn+1 (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hn × Rd ) = pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hn ).

(1.3)

Equations (1.2) and (1.3) are called Kolmogorov’s consistency criteria. Now suppose that we are given a family of probability measures

( pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn , 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞, n ∈ N) satisfying these criteria. Kolmogorov’s construction, which we will now describe, allows us to build a stochastic process for which these are the finitedimensional distributions. The procedure is as follows. Let  be the set of all mappings from R+ into Rd and F be the smallest σ -algebra containing all cylinder sets of the form

ItH1 ,t2 ,...,tn = {ω ∈ ; (ω(t1 ), ω(t2 ), . . . , ω(tn )) ∈ H }, where H ∈ B(Rdn ). Define the co-ordinate process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) by

X (t)(ω) = ω(t) for each t ≥ 0, ω ∈ . The main result is

1.1 Review of measure and probability

19

Theorem 1.1.16 (Kolmogorov’s existence theorem) Given a family of probability measures ( pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn , 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞, n ∈ N) satisfying the Kolmogorov consistency criteria, there exists a probability measure P on (, F) such that the co-ordinate process X is a stochastic process on (, F, P) having the pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn as its finite-dimensional distributions. A stochastic process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is said to be separable if there exists a countable subset D ⊂ R+ such that, for each t ≥ 0, there exists a sequence (t (n), n ∈ N) in D with each t (n) = t such that limn→∞ t (n) = t and limn→∞ X (t (n)) = X (t). Kolmogorov’s theorem can be extended to show that, given a family ( pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn , 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞, n ∈ N) of probability measures satisfying the Kolmogorov consistency criteria, we can always construct a separable process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) on some (, F, P) having the pt1 ,t2 ,...,tn as its finite-dimensional distributions. Bearing this in mind, we will suffer no loss in generality if we assume all stochastic processes considered in this book to be separable. The maps from R+ to Rd given by t → X (t)(ω), where ω ∈  are called the sample paths of the stochastic process X . We say that a process is continuous, bounded, increasing etc. if almost all its sample paths have this property. Let G be a group of matrices acting on Rd . We say that a stochastic process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is G-invariant if the law p X (t) is G-invariant for all t ≥ 0. Clearly X is G-invariant if and only if

φ X (t) (g T u) = φ X (t) (u) for all t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd , g ∈ G. In the case where G = O(d), the group of all d × d orthogonal matrices acting in Rd , we say that the process X is rotationally invariant and when G is the normal subgroup of O(d) comprising the two points {−I, I } we say that X is symmetric. 1.1.8 Random fields A random field is a natural generalisation of a stochastic process in which the time interval is replaced by a different set E. Here we will assume that E ∈ B(Rd ) and define a random field on E to be a family of random variables X = (X (y), y ∈ E). We will only use random fields on one occasion, in Chapter 6, and there it will be important for us to be able to show that they are (almost surely) continuous. Fortunately, we have the celebrated Kolmogorov criterion to facilitate this.

20

L´evy processes

Theorem 1.1.17 (Kolmogorov’s continuity criterion) Let X be a random field on E and suppose that there exist strictly positive constants γ , C and  such that

E(|X (y2 ) − X (y1 )|γ ) ≤ C|y2 − y1 |d+ for all y1 , y2 ∈ E. Then there exists another random field X˜ on E such that X˜ (y) = X (y) (a.s.), for all y ∈ E, and X˜ is almost surely continuous. For a proof of this result, see Revuz and Yor [260], Section 1.2, or Kunita [182], Section 1.4.

1.2 Infinite divisibility 1.2.1 Convolution of measures Let M1 (Rd ) denote the set of all Borel probability measures on Rd . We define the convolution of two probability measures as follows:



(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(A) =

Rd

µ1 (A − x)µ2 (d x)

(1.4)

for each µi ∈ M1 (Rd ), i = 1, 2, and each A ∈ B(Rd ), where we note that A − x = {y − x, y ∈ A}. Proposition 1.2.1 The convolution µ1 ∗ µ2 is a probability measure on Rd . Proof First we show that convolution is a measure. Let (An , n ∈ N) be a sequence of disjoint sets in B(Rd ); then, for each x ∈ Rd , the members of the sequence (An − x, n ∈ N) are also disjoint and



(µ1 ∗ µ2 )





An



=

n∈N

Rd

µ1 

=

Rd

= =



Rd n∈N



n∈N

=

µ1

Rd





An − x µ2 (d x)

n∈N





(An − x) µ2 (d x)

n∈N

µ1 (An − x)µ2 (d x) µ1 (An − x)µ2 (d x)

 (µ1 ∗ µ2 )(An ), n∈N



1.2 Infinite divisibility

21

where the interchange of sum and integral is justified by dominated convergence. The fact that µ1 ∗ µ2 is a probability measure now follows easily from the observation that the map from Rd to itself given by the translation y → y − x is a bijection, and so Rd = Rd − x. From the above proposition, we see that convolution is a binary operation on M1 (Rd ). Proposition 1.2.2 If f ∈ Bb (Rd ), then for all µi ∈ M1 (Rd ), i = 1, 2, 3, (1)



Rd

f (y)(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(dy) =

Rd

Rd

f (x + y)µ1 (dy)µ2 (d x),

(2)

µ1 ∗ µ2 = µ2 ∗ µ1 , (3)

(µ1 ∗ µ2 ) ∗ µ3 = µ1 ∗ (µ2 ∗ µ3 ). Proof (1) We can easily verify the result for indicator functions by the fact that, for any A ∈ B(Rd ) and x, y ∈ Rd ,

χ A (x + y) = χ A−x (y). The result is then extended by linearity to simple functions. The general result is settled by approximation as follows. (n) (n) Let M = supx∈Rd | f (x)|, fix  > 0 and, for each n ∈ N, let a0 < a1 < (n) (n) (n) · · · < am n be such that the collection of intervals {(ai−1 , ai ]; 1 ≤ i ≤ m n } (n) (n) covers [−M, M] with max1≤i≤m n |ai − ai−1 | < , for sufficiently large n. m n (n) Define a sequence of simple functions by f n = i=1 ai−1 χ A(n) , where each i (n) (n) (n) −1 Ai = f ((ai−1 , ai ]). Then for sufficiently large n we have



Rd

| f n (x) − f (x)|(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(d x) ≤ sup | f n (x) − f (x)| x∈R d

= max sup | f n (x) − f (x)| < . 1≤i≤m n

(n)

x∈Ai

If we define gn (x, y) = f n (x + y) and g(x, y) = f (x + y) for each n ∈ N, x, y ∈ Rd , then an argument similar to the above shows that limn→∞ gn = g in L 1 (Rd × Rd , µ1 × µ2 ). The required result now follows from use of the dominated convergence theorem.

22

L´evy processes

(2) By Fubini’s theorem in (1),





f (z)(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(dz) =

Rd

Rd

f (z)(µ2 ∗ µ1 )(dz).

Then take f = χ A where A is a Borel set and the result follows. (3) Use Fubini’s theorem again to show that both expressions are equal to





Rd

Rd



Rd

f (x + y + z)µ1 (d x)µ2 (dy)µ3 (dz).

Now let X 1 and X 2 be independent random variables defined on a probability space (, F, P) with joint distribution p and marginals µ1 and µ2 respectively. Corollary 1.2.3 For each f ∈ Bb (Rn ),



E( f (X 1 + X 2 )) =

Rd

f (z)(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(dz).

Proof Using part (1) of Proposition 1.2.2,





E( f (X 1 + X 2 )) = =

R R d

d

d

R

Rd

=

f (x + y) p(d x, dy) f (x + y)µ1 (d x)µ2 (dy)

f (z)(µ1 ∗ µ2 )(dz).

Rd

By Corollary 1.2.3, we see that convolution gives the probability law for the sum of two independent random variables X 1 and X 2 , i.e.

P(X 1 + X 2 ∈ A) = E(χ A (X 1 + X 2 )) = (µ1 ∗ µ2 )(A). Proposition 1.2.2 also tells us that M1 (Rd ) is an abelian semigroup under ∗ in which the identity element is given by the Dirac measure δ0 , where we recall that in general, for x ∈ Rd ,



δx (A) =

1 0

if x ∈ A, otherwise,

for any Borel set A, so we have δ0 ∗ µ = µ ∗ δ0 = µ for all µ ∈ M1 (Rd ).

1.2 Infinite divisibility

23

We define µ∗ = µ ∗ · · · ∗ µ (n times) and say that µ has a convolution nth n root, if there exists a measure µ1/n ∈ M1 (Rd ) for which (µ1/n )∗ = µ. n

Exercise 1.2.4 If X and Y are independent random variables having probability density functions (pdfs) f X and f Y respectively, show that X + Y has density



f X +Y (x) =

Rd

f X (x − y) f Y (y)dy,

where x ∈ Rd . Exercise 1.2.5 Let X have a gamma distribution with parameters n ∈ N and λ > 0, so that X has pdf

f (x) =

λn x n−1 e−λx (n − 1)!

for x > 0.

Show that X has a convolution nth root given by the exponental distribution 1/n with parameter λ and pdf f X (x) = λe−λx . Note In general, the convolution nth root of a probability measure may not be unique. However, it is always unique when the measure is infinitely divisible (see e.g. Sato [274], p. 34). 1.2.2 Definition of infinite divisibility Let X be a random variable taking values in Rd with law µ X . We say that X is infinitely divisible if, for all n ∈ N, there exist i.i.d. random variables (n) (n) Y1 , . . . , Yn such that

X = Y1(n) + · · · + Yn(n) . d

(1.5)

Let φ X (u) = E(ei(u,X ) ) denote the characteristic function of X , where u ∈ Rd . More generally, if µ ∈ M1 (Rd ) then φµ (u) = Rd ei(u,y) µ(dy). Proposition 1.2.6 The following are equivalent: (1) X is infinitely divisible; (2) µ X has a convolution nth root that is itself the law of a random variable, for each n ∈ N; (3) φ X has an nth root that is itself the characteristic function of a random variable, for each n ∈ N. (n)

Proof (1) ⇒ (2). The common law of the Y j nth root.

is the required convolution

24

L´evy processes

(2) ⇒ (3). Let Y be a random variable with law (µ X )1/n . We have by Proposition 1.2.2(1), for each u ∈ Rd ,



φ X (u) =



···

ei(u, y1 +···+yn ) (µ X )1/n (dy1 ) · · · (µ X )1/n (dyn )

= ψY (u)n

where ψY (u) = Rd ei(u,y) (µ X )1/n (dy), and the required result follows. (n) (n) (3) ⇒ (1). Choose Y1 , . . . , Yn to be independent copies of the given random variable; then we have

   (n)  (n)  (n) (n)  E(ei(u,X ) ) = E ei(u,Y1 ) · · · E ei(u,Yn ) = E ei(u,(Y1 +···+Yn ) , from which we deduce (1.5) as required. Proposition 1.2.6(2) suggests that we generalise the definition of infinite divisibility as follows: µ ∈ M1 (Rd ) is infinitely divisible if it has a convolution nth root in M1 (Rd ) for each n ∈ N. Exercise 1.2.7 Show that µ ∈ M1 (Rd ) is infinitely divisible if and only if for each n ∈ N there exists µ1/n ∈ M1 (Rd ) for which

 n φµ (x) = φµ1/n (x) for each x ∈ Rd . Note As remarked above, the convolution nth root µ1/n in Exercise 1.2.7 is unique when µ is infinitely divisible. Moreover, in this case the complexvalued function φµ always has a ‘distinguished’ nth root, which we denote 1/n by φµ ; this is the characteristic function of µ1/n (see Sato [274], pp. 32–4, for further details).

1.2.3 Examples of infinite divisibility Example 1.2.8 (Gaussian random variables) Let X = (X 1 , . . . , X d ) be a random vector. We say that it is (non-degenerate) Gaussian, or normal, if there exists a vector m ∈ Rd and a strictly positive definite symmetric d × d matrix A such that X has a pdf of the form

f (x) =

(2π )d/2

for all x ∈ Rd .

1 √

det(A)

  exp − 12 (x − m, A−1 (x − m)) ,

(1.6)

1.2 Infinite divisibility

25

In this case we will write X ∼ N (m, A). The vector m is the mean of X , so that m = E(X ), and A is the covariance matrix, so that A = E((X − m)(X − m)T ). A standard calculation yields

  φ X (u) = exp i(m, u) − 12 (u, Au) ,

and hence



1/n

φ X (u)

(1.7)

  = exp i( mn , u) − 12 (u, n1 Au) , (n)

so we see that X is infinitely divisible with Y j ∼ N (m/n, (1/n)A) for each 1 ≤ j ≤ n. We say that X is a standard normal whenever X ∼ N (0, σ 2 I ) for some σ > 0. Remark: Degenerate Gaussians Suppose that the matrix A is only required to be positive definite; then we may have det(A) = 0, in which case the density (1.6) does not exist. Let φ(u) denote the quantity appearing on the right-hand side of (1.7); if we now replace A therein by A + (1/n)I and take the limit as n → ∞, it follows from L´evy’s convergence theorem that φ is again the characteristic function of a probability measure µ. Any random variable X with such a law µ is called a degenerate Gaussian, and we again write X ∼ N (m, A). Let S denote the linear subspace of Rn that is the linear span of those eigenvectors corresponding to non-zero eigenvalues of A; then the restriction of A to S is strictly positive definite and so is associated with a non-degenerate Gaussian density of the form (1.6). On S ⊥ we have φ(u) = eimu , which corresponds to a random variable taking the constant value m, almost surely. Thus we can understand degenerate Gaussians as the embeddings of non-degenerate Gaussians into higher-dimensional spaces. Example 1.2.9 (Poisson random variables) In this case, we take d = 1 and consider a random variable X taking values in the set n ∈ N ∪ {0}. We say that is Poisson if there exists c > 0 for which

P(X = n) =

cn −c e . n!

In this case we will write X ∼ π(c). We have E(X ) = Var(X ) = c. It is easy to verify that

φ X (u) = exp[c(eiu − 1)], (n)

from which we deduce that X is infinitely divisible with each Y j for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, n ∈ N.

∼ π(c/n),

26

L´evy processes

Example 1.2.10 (Compound Poisson random variables) Suppose that (Z (n), n ∈ N) is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables taking values in Rd with common law µ Z and let N ∼ π(c) be a Poisson random variable that is independent of all the Z (n). The compound Poisson random variable X is defined as follows: X = Z (1) + · · · + Z (N ), so we can think of X as a random walk with a random number of steps, which are controlled by the Poisson random variable N . Proposition 1.2.11 For each u ∈ Rd ,



φ X (u) = exp

Rd

(e

i(u,y)

− 1)cµ Z (dy) .

Proof Let φ Z be the common characteristic function of the Z n . By conditioning and using independence we find that ∞      φ X (u) = E exp i(u, Z (1) + · · · + Z (N ))  N = n P(N = n) n=0 ∞     cn E exp i(u, Z (1) + · · · + Z (n)) e−c = n! n=0

= e−c

∞  [cφ Z (u)]n n=0

n!

= exp[c(φ Z (u) − 1)],

and the result follows on writing φ Z (u) = Rd ei(u,y) µ Z (dy). Note We have employed the convention that Z (0) = 0 (a.s.). If X is compound Poisson as above, we write X ∼ π(c, µ Z ). It is clearly (n) infinitely divisible with each Y j ∼ π(c/n, µ Z ), for 1 ≤ j ≤ n. The quantity X will have a finite mean if and only if each Z n does. Indeed, in this case, straightforward differentiation of φ X yields E(X ) = cm Z , where m Z is the common value of the E(Z n ). Similar remarks apply to higher-order moments of X . Exercise 1.2.12 (1) Verify that the sum of two independent infinitely divisible random variables is itself infinitely divisible. (2) Show that the weak limit of a sequence of infinitely divisible probability measures is itself infinitely divisible. (Hint: use L´evy’s continuity theorem.)

1.2 Infinite divisibility

27

We will frequently meet examples of the following type. Let X = X 1 + X 2 , where X 1 and X 2 are independent with X 1 ∼ N (m, A) and X 2 ∼ π(c, µ Z ); then, for each u ∈ Rd ,



i(u,y) 1 φ X (u) = exp i(m, u) − 2 (u, Au) + (e − 1)cµ Z (dy) . (1.8) Rd

1.2.4 The L´evy–Khintchine formula In this section, we will present a beautiful formula, first established by Paul L´evy and A.Ya. Khintchine in the 1930s, which gives a characterisation of infinitely divisible random variables through their characteristic functions. First we need a definition. Let ν be a Borel measure defined on Rd − {0} = {x ∈ Rd , x = 0}. We say that it is a L´evy measure if



Rd −{0}

(|y|2 ∧ 1)ν(dy) < ∞.

(1.9)

Since |y|2 ∧  ≤ |y|2 ∧ 1 whenever 0 <  ≤ 1, it follows from (1.9) that

ν((−, )c ) < ∞

for all  > 0.

Exercise 1.2.13 Show that every L´evy measure on Rd − {0} is σ -finite. Alternative characterisations of L´evy measures can be found in the literature. One of the most popular replaces (1.9) by



Rd −{0}

|y|2 ν(dy) < ∞. 1 + |y|2

(1.10)

To see that (1.9) and (1.10) are equivalent, it is sufficient to verify the inequalities

|y|2 |y|2 2 ≤ |y| ∧ 1 ≤ 2 1 + |y|2 1 + |y|2 for each y ∈ Rd . Note that any finite measure on Rd − {0} is a L´evy measure. Also, if the reader so wishes, the alternative convention may be adopted of defining L´evy measures on the whole of Rd via the assignment ν({0}) = 0; see e.g. Sato [274].

28

L´evy processes

The result given below is usually called the L´evy–Khintchine formula and it is the cornerstone for much of what follows. Theorem 1.2.14 (L´evy–Khintchine) µ ∈ M1 (Rd ) is infinitely divisible if there exists a vector b ∈ Rd , a positive definite symmetric d × d matrix A and a L´evy measure ν on Rd − {0} such that, for all u ∈ Rd ,

 φµ (u) = exp i(b, u) − 12 (u, Au)

+



Rd −{0}

e

i(u,y)

 − 1 − i(u, y)χ Bˆ (y) ν(dy) , 

(1.11)

where Bˆ = B1 (0). Conversely, any mapping of the form (1.11) is the characteristic function of an infinitely divisible probability measure on Rd . Proof We are only going to prove the second part of the theorem here; the more difficult first part will be proved as a by-product of the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition in Chapter 2. First we need to show that the right-hand side of (1.11) is a characteristic function. To this end, let (α(n), n ∈ N) be a sequence in Rd that is monotonic decreasing to zero and define for all u ∈ Rd , n ∈ N,



φn (u) = exp i b −

+



[−α(n),α(n)]c ∩ Bˆ

[−α(n),α(n)]c

(e

i(u,y)

yν(dy), u − 12 (u, Au)

− 1)ν(dy) .

Then each φn represents the convolution of a normal distribution with an independent compound Poisson distribution, as in (1.8), and thus is the characteristic function of a probability measure µn . We clearly have

φµ (u) = lim φn (u). n→∞

The fact that φµ is a characteristic function will follow by L´evy’s continuity theorem if we can show that it is continuous at zero. This boils down to proving the continuity at 0 of ψµ , where, for each u ∈ Rd ,



ψµ (u) =



Rd −{0}

=

 Bˆ

e

 ei(u,y) − 1 − i(u, y)χ Bˆ (y) ν(dy)

i(u,y)



− 1 − i(u, y) ν(dy) +

Bˆ c

(ei(u,y) − 1)ν(dy).

1.2 Infinite divisibility

29

Now using Taylor’s theorem, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, (1.9) and dominated convergence, we obtain

|ψµ (u)| ≤

1 2



Bˆ

|u|2 ≤ 2 →0

|(u, y)|2 ν(dy) +

Bˆ c

|y| ν(dy) + 2

Bˆ

Bˆ c

|ei(u,y) − 1|ν(dy)

|ei(u,y) − 1|ν(dy)

as u → 0.

It is now easy to verify directly that µ is infinitely divisible. Notes (1) The technique used in the proof above of taking the limits of sequences composed of sums of Gaussians with independent compound Poissons will recur frequently. (2) The proof of the ‘only if’ part involves much more work. See e.g. Sato ([274]), pp. 41–5, for one way of doing this. An alternative approach will be given in Chapter 2, as a by-product of the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition. (3) There is nothing special about the ‘cut-off’ function c(y) = yχ B that occurs within the integral in (1.11). An alternative that is often used is c(y) = y/(1 + |y|2 ). The only constraint in choosing c is that the function gc (y) = ei(u,y) − 1 − i(c(y), u) should be ν-integrable for each u ∈ Rd . Note that if you adopt a different c then you must change the vector b accordingly in (1.11). (4) Relative to the choice of c that we have taken, the members of the triple (b, A, ν) are called the characteristics of the infinitely divisible random variable X . Examples of these are as follows. • Gaussian case: b is the mean, m, A is the covariance matrix, ν = 0. • Poisson case: b = 0, A = 0, ν = cδ1 . • Compound Poisson case: b = 0, A = 0, ν = cµ, where c > 0 and µ is a probability measure on Rd . (5) It is important to be aware that the interpretation of b and A as mean and covariance, respectively, is particular to the Gaussian case; e.g. in (1.8),

E(X ) = m + c when the integral is finite.

Rd

yµ Z (dy),

30

L´evy processes

In the proof of Theorem 1.2.14, we wrote down the characteristic function φµ (u) = eη(u) . We will call the map η : Rd → C a L´evy symbol, as it is the symbol for a pseudo-differential operator (see Chapter 3). Many other authors call η the characteristic exponent or L´evy exponent. Since, for all u ∈ Rd , |φµ (u)| ≤ 1 for any probability measure µ and φµ (u) = eη(u) , when µ is infinitely divisible we deduce that η(u) ≤ 0. Exercise 1.2.15 Show that η is continuous at every u ∈ Rd (and uniformly so in a neighbourhood of the origin). Exercise 1.2.16 Establish the useful inequality

|η(u)| ≤ C(1 + |u|2 ) for each u ∈ Rd , where C > 0. The following theorem gives an interesting analytic insight into the L´evy– Khintchine formula. Theorem 1.2.17 The map η is a L´evy symbol if and only if it is a continuous, hermitian, conditionally positive definite function for which η(0) = 0. Proof Suppose that η is a L´evy symbol; then so is tη, for each t > 0. Then there exists a probability measure µ(t) for each t ≥ 0, such that φµ(t) (u) = etη(u) for each u ∈ Rd . But η is continuous by Exercise 1.2.15 and η(0) = 0. Since φµ is positive definite then η is hermitian and conditionally positive definite by the Schoenberg correspondence. Conversely, suppose that η is continuous, hermitian and conditionally positive definite with η(0) = 0. By the Schoenberg correspondence (Theorem 1.1.2) and Bochner’s theorem, there exists a probability measure µ for which φµ (u) = eη(u) for each u ∈ Rd . Since η/n is, for each n ∈ N, another continuous, hermitian, conditionally positive definite function that vanishes at the origin, we see that µ is infinitely divisible and the result follows. We will gain more insight into the meaning of the L´evy–Khintchine formula when we consider L´evy processes. For now it is important to be aware that all infinitely divisible distributions can be constructed as weak limits of convolutions of Gaussians with independent compound Poissons, as the proof of Theorem 1.2.14 indicated. In the next section we will see that some very interesting examples occur as such limits. The final result of this section shows that in fact the compound Poisson distribution is enough for a weak approximation.

1.2 Infinite divisibility

31

Theorem 1.2.18 Any infinitely divisible probability measure can be obtained as the weak limit of a sequence of compound Poisson distributions. Proof Let φ be the characteristic function of an arbitrary infinitely divisible probability measure µ, so that φ 1/n is the characteristic function of µ1/n ; then for each n ∈ N, u ∈ Rd , we may define

   φn (u) = exp n φ 1/n (u) − 1 = exp





Rd

(e

i(u,y)

− 1)nµ

1/n

(dy) ,

so that φn is the characteristic function of a compound Poisson distribution. We then have

  φn (u) = exp n(e(1/n) log[φ(u)] − 1)      1 → φ(u) = exp log φ(u) + n o n

as

n → ∞,

where ‘log’ is the principal value of the logarithm; the result follows by Glivenko’s theorem. Corollary 1.2.19 The set of all infinitely divisible probability measures on Rd coincides with the weak closure of the set of all compound Poisson distributions on Rd . Proof This follows directly from Theorem 1.2.18 and Exercise 1.2.12(2). Although the L´evy–Khintchine formula represents all infinitely divisible random variables as arising through the interplay between Gaussian and Poisson distributions, a vast array of different behaviour appears between these two extreme cases. A large number of examples are given in Chapter 1 of Sato ([274]). We will be content to focus on a subclass of great importance and then look at two rather diverse and interesting cases that originate from outside probability theory.1 1.2.5 Stable random variables We consider the general central limit problem in dimension d = 1, so let (Yn , n ∈ N) be a sequence of real-valued random variables and construct the sequence (Sn , n ∈ N) of rescaled partial sums

Sn =

Y1 + Y2 + · · · + Yn − bn , σn

1 Readers with an interest in statistics will be pleased to know that the gamma distribution (of

which the chi-squared distribution is a special case) is infinitely divisible. We will say more about this is Subsection 1.3.2. The t-distribution is also infinitely divisible; see Grosswald [124].

32

L´evy processes

where (bn , n ∈ N) is an arbitrary sequence of real numbers and (σn , n ∈ N) an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers. We are interested in the case where there exists a random variable X for which

lim P(Sn ≤ x) = P(X ≤ x)

n→∞

(1.12)

for all x ∈ R, i.e. (Sn , n ∈ N) converges in distribution to X . If each bn = nm √ and σn = nσ for fixed m ∈ R, σ > 0, then X ∼ N (m, σ 2 ) by the usual Laplace–de-Moivre central limit theorem. More generally a random variable is said to be stable if it arises as a limit, as in (1.12). It is not difficult (see e.g. Breiman [58], Gnedenko and Kolmogorov [121]) to show that (1.12) is equivalent to the following. There exist real-valued sequences (cn , n ∈ N) and (dn , n ∈ N) with each cn > 0 such that d

X 1 + X 2 + · · · + X n = cn X + dn ,

(1.13)

where X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X n are independent copies of X . In particular, X is said to be strictly stable if each dn = 0. To see that (1.13) ⇒ (1.12) take each Y j = X j , bn = dn and σn = cn . In fact it can be shown (see Feller [102], p. 166) that the only possible choice of cn in (1.13) is of the form σ n 1/α , where 0 < α ≤ 2. The parameter α plays a key role in the investigation of stable random variables and is called the index of stability. Note that (1.13) can be expressed in the equivalent form

φ X (u)n = eiudn φ X (cn u), for each u ∈ R. It follows immediately from (1.13) that all stable random variables are infinitely divisible. The characteristics in the L´evy–Khintchine formula are given by the following result. Theorem 1.2.20 If X is a stable real-valued random variable, then its characteristics must take one of the two following forms: (1) when α = 2, ν = 0, so X ∼ N (b, A); (2) when α = 2, A = 0 and

ν(d x) =

c1 x 1+α

χ(0,∞) (x)d x +

where c1 ≥ 0, c2 ≥ 0 and c1 + c2 > 0. A proof can be found in Sato [274], p. 80.

c2 χ(−∞,0) (x)d x, |x|1+α

1.2 Infinite divisibility

33

A careful transformation of the integrals in the L´evy–Khintchine formula gives a different form for the characteristic function, which is often more convenient (see Sato [274], p. 86). Theorem 1.2.21 A real-valued random variable X is stable if and only if there exist σ > 0, −1 ≤ β ≤ 1 and µ ∈ R such that for all u ∈ R: (1) when α = 2,

  1 2 2 φ X (u) = exp iµu − σ u ; 2 (2) when α = 1, 2,

  π α !  ; φ X (u) = exp iµu − σ α |u|α 1 − iβ sgn (u) tan 2 (3) when α = 1,

  2 φ X (u) = exp iµu − σ |u| 1 + iβ sgn (u) log(|u|) . π It can be shown that E(X 2 ) < ∞ if and only if α = 2 (i.e. X is Gaussian) and that E(|X |) < ∞ if and only if 1 < α ≤ 2. All stable random variables have densities f X , which can in general be expressed in series form (see Feller [102], Chapter 17, Section 6). In three important cases, there are closed forms. The normal distribution

α = 2,

X ∼ N (µ, σ 2 ).

The Cauchy distribution

α = 1, β = 0,

f X (x) =

σ . π [(x − µ)2 + σ 2 ]

The L´evy distribution

1 α = , β = 1, 2

 σ 1/2 1 σ f X (x) = exp − 2π (x − µ)3/2 2(x − µ)

for x > µ.

34

L´evy processes

Exercise 1.2.22 (The Cauchy distribution) Prove directly that



∞

σ d x = eiµu−σ |u| . π [(x − µ)2 + σ 2 ]

eiux

−∞

(Hint: One approach is to use the calculus of residues. Alternatively, by integrating from −∞ to 0 and then 0 to ∞, separately, deduce that



∞

−∞

e−it x e−|x| d x =

2 . 1 + t2

Now use Fourier inversion; see Subsection 3.8.4.) Exercise 1.2.23 Let X and Y be independent standard normal random variables. Show that Z has a Cauchy distribution, where Z = Y / X when X = 0 and Z = 0 otherwise. Show also that W has a L´evy distribution, where W = 1/X 2 when X = 0 and W = 0 otherwise. Note that if a stable random variable is symmetric then Theorem 1.2.21 yields

φ X (u) = exp(−ρ α |u|α )

for all 0 < α ≤ 2, √

(1.14)

where ρ = σ for 0 < α < 2 and ρ = σ/ 2 when α = 2; we will write X ∼ SαS in this case. Although it does not have a closed-form density, the symmetric stable distribution with α = 3/2 is of considerable practical importance. It is called the Holtsmark distribution and its three-dimensional generalisation has been used to model the gravitational field of stars: see Feller [102], p. 173 and Zolotarev [312]. One of the reasons why stable laws are so important in applications is the nice decay properties of the tails. The case α = 2 is special in that we have exponential decay; indeed, for a standard normal X there is the elementary estimate

e−y /2 P(X > y) ∼ √ 2π y 2

as y → ∞;

see Feller [101], Chapter 7, Section 1. When α = 2 we have a slower, polynomial, decay as expressed in the following:

1+β α σ , 2 1−β α lim y α P(X < −y) = Cα σ , y→∞ 2 lim y α P(X > y) = Cα

y→∞

1.2 Infinite divisibility

35

where Cα > 1; see Samorodnitsky and Taqqu [271], pp. 16–18, for a proof and an explicit expression for the constant Cα . The relatively slow decay of the tails of non-Gaussian stable laws makes them ideally suited for modelling a wide range of interesting phenomena, some of which exhibit ‘long-range dependence’; see Taqqu [294] for a nice survey of such applications. The mathematical description of ‘heavy tails’ is intimately related to the concept of regular variation. For a detailed account of this, see Bingham et al. [46], particularly Chapter 8, or Resnick [259]. The generalisation of stability to random vectors is straightforward: just replace X 1 , . . . , X n , X and each dn in (1.13) by vectors, and the formula in Theorem 1.2.20 extends directly. Note however that when α = 2 in the random vector version of Theorem 1.2.20, the L´evy measure takes the form

ν(d x) =

c dx |x|d+α

where c > 0. The corresponding extension of Theorem 1.2.21 is as follows (see Sato [274], p. 83 for a proof). Theorem 1.2.24 A random variable X taking values in Rd is stable if and only if for all u ∈ Rd there exists a vector m ∈ Rd and (1) there exists a positive definite symmetric d × d matrix A such that, when α = 2,

1 φ X (u) = exp i(m, u) − (u, Au) ; 2 (2) there exists a finite measure ρ on S d−1 such that, when α = 1, 2,

φ X (u)

"

#   π α  = exp i(m, u) − sgn (u, s)ρ(ds) ; |(u, s)|α 1 − i tan 2 S d−1

(3) there exists a finite measure ρ on S d−1 such that, when α = 1,

φ X (u)

"

#

2 |(u, s)| 1 + i sgn (u, s) log |(u, s)| ρ(ds) . = exp i(m, u)− π S d−1

36

L´evy processes Note that, for 0 < α < 2, X is symmetric if and only if



φ X (u) = exp −

|(u, s)| ρ(ds) α

S d−1

for each u ∈ Rd and X is rotationally invariant for 0 < α ≤ 2 if and only if the Rd -version of equation (1.14) holds. We can generalise the definition of stable random variables if we weaken the conditions on the random variables (Y (n), n ∈ N) in the general central limit problem by requiring these to be independent but no longer necessarily identically distributed. In this case the limiting random variables are called self-decomposable (or of class L) and they are also infinitely divisible. Alternatively, a random variable X is self-decomposable if and only if for each 0 < a < 1 there exists a random variable Ya that is independent of X and such that d

X = a X + Ya

⇔

φ X (u) = φ X (au)φYa (u),

for all u ∈ Rd . Self-decomposable distributions are discussed in Sato [274], p. 90–9, where it is shown that an infinitely divisible law on R is selfdecomposable if and only if the L´evy measure is of the form

ν(d x) =

k(x) d x, |x|

where k is decreasing on (0, ∞) and increasing on (−∞, 0). There has recently been increasing interest in these distributions from both the theoretical and applied perspectives; see for example Bingham and Keisel [49] or the article by Z. Jurek in [19] and references therein.

1.2.6 Diversion: Number theory and relativity We will look at two interesting examples of infinitely divisible distributions. The Riemann zeta distribution The Riemann zeta function ζ is defined, initially for complex numbers z = u + iv where u > 1, by the (absolutely) convergent series expansion

ζ (z) =

∞  1 , nz n=1

1.2 Infinite divisibility

37

which is equivalent to the Euler product formula

ζ (z) =



p∈P

1 , 1 − p −z

(1.15)

P being the set of all prime numbers. Riemann showed that ζ can be extended by analytic continuation to a meromorphic function on the whole of C, having a single (simple) pole at z = 1. He also investigated the zeros of ζ and showed that that these are at {−2n, n ∈ N} and in the strip |u| ≤ 1. The celebrated Riemann hypothesis is that all the latter class are in fact on the line u = 1/2, and this question remains unresolved although Hardy has shown that an infinite number of zeros are of this form. For more about this and related issues see e.g. Chapter 9 of Patterson [250] and references therein. We will now look at a remarkable connection between the Riemann zeta function and infinite divisibility that is originally due to A. Khintchine (see [121], pp. 75–6), although it has its antecedents in work by Jessen and Wintner [159]. Fix u ∈ R with u > 1 and define φu : R → C by

φu (v) =

ζ (u + iv) , ζ (u + i0)

for all v ∈ R. Proposition 1.2.25 (Khintchine) For each u > 1, φu is the characteristic function of an infinitely divisible probability measure. Proof Using (1.15) and the Taylor series expansion of the complex function log(1 + w), where |w| < 1, we find for all v ∈ R that (taking the principal value of the logarithm),

      log φu (v) = log ζ (u + iv) − log ζ (u + i0)   = log(1 − p −u ) − log(1 − p −(u+iv) ) p∈P

=



∞  

p∈P m=1

p∈P

p −mu p −m(u+iv) − m m



∞  p −mu −im log( p) v = (e − 1) m p∈P m=1 ∞

 euα = (eiαv − 1) δ−m log( p) (dα). m p∈P m=1 R

38

L´evy processes

Hence we see that φu is the limit of a sequence of characteristic functions of Poisson laws. It follows by the L´evy continuity theorem that φu is the characteristic function of a probability measure that is infinitely divisible, by Glivenko’s theorem and Exercise 1.2.12(2). After many years of neglect, some investigations into this distribution have recently appeared in Lin and Hu [197]. Other developments involving numbertheoretic aspects of infinite divisibility can be found in Jurek [163], where the relationship between Dirichlet series and self-decomposable distributions is explored, and in the survey article by Biane, Pitman and Yor [41]. A relativistic distribution We will consider an example that originates in Einstein’s theory of relativity. A particle of rest mass m > 0 has momentum p = ( p1 , p2 , p3 ) ∈ R3 . According to relativity theory, its total energy is

E( p) =

$ m 2 c4 + c2 | p|2 ,

where c > 0 is the velocity of light (see e.g. Born [54], p. 291) and, if we subtract the energy mc2 that is tied up in the rest mass, we obtain the kinetic energy, i.e. the energy due to motion,

E m,c ( p) =

$

m 2 c4 + c2 | p|2 − mc2 .

Although m and c are ‘fixed’ by physics we have indicated an explicit dependence of the energy on these ‘parameters’ for reasons that will become clearer below. Define

φm,c ( p) = e−Em,c ( p) , where we now take p ∈ Rd for greater generality. Theorem 1.2.26 φm,c is the characteristic function of an infinitely divisible probability distribution. Proof The fact that φm,c is a characteristic function follows by Bochner’s theorem once we have shown that it is positive definite. Since E m,c is clearly hermitian, demonstrating this latter fact is equivalent, by the Schoenberg correspondence, to demonstrating that n  i, j=1

αi α¯j E m,c ( pi − p j ) ≤ 0

1.3 L´evy processes

for all n ∈ N, αi ∈ C, pi ∈ Rd , 1 ≤ i ≤ n, with n 

αi α¯j E m,c ( pi − p j ) = mc2

i, j=1

n 

n

= mc

n 

≤ mc

n  i, j=1

=

1/2





| pi − p j |2 1+ m 2 c2 | pi − p j |2 1+ m 2 c2



1/2

 αi α¯j αi α¯j

= 0. Now

| pi − p j |2 1+ m 2 c2

αi α¯j

i, j=1 2

i=1 αi



i, j=1 2

39

−1

n 1  αi α¯j | pi − p j |2 ≤ 0, m i, j=1

where the last assertion follows from the fact that the mapping p → −| p|2 is the L´evy symbol of a normal distribution and so is itself conditionally positive definite. To verify that the associated probability measure is infinitely divisible, it is sufficient to observe that



1/n

φm,c ( p)

= φnm,c/n ( p)

for all p ∈ Rd , n ∈ N. We will meet this example again in Chapter 3 in ‘quantised’ form.

1.3 L´evy processes Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a stochastic process defined on a probability space (, F, P). We say that it has independent increments if for each n ∈ N and each 0 ≤ t1 < t2 ≤ · · · < tn+1 < ∞ the random variables (X (t j+1 ) − X (t j ), 1 ≤ j ≤ n) are independent and that it has stationary increments if d each X (t j+1 ) − X (t j ) = X (t j+1 − t j ) − X (0). We say that X is a L´evy process if: (L1) X (0) = 0 (a.s); (L2) X has independent and stationary increments; (L3) X is stochastically continuous, i.e. for all a > 0 and for all s ≥ 0

lim P(|X (t) − X (s)| > a) = 0. t→s

40

L´evy processes

Note that in the presence of (L1) and (L2), (L3) is equivalent to the condition

lim P(|X (t)| > a) = 0 t↓0

for all a > 0. We are now going to explore the relationship between L´evy processes and infinite divisibility. Proposition 1.3.1 If X is a L´evy process, then X (t) is infinitely divisible for each t ≥ 0. Proof For each n ∈ N, we can write

X (t) = Y1(n) (t) + · · · + Yn(n) (t) where each

Yk(n) (t)

 =X

kt n



 −X

(k − 1)t n

 .

(n)

The Yk (t) are i.i.d. by (L2). By Proposition 1.3.1, we can write φ X (t) (u) = eη(t,u) for each t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd , where each η(t, ·) is a L´evy symbol. We will see below that η(t, u) = tη(1, u) for each t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd , but first we need the following lemma. Lemma 1.3.2 If X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is stochastically continuous, then the map t → φ X (t) (u) is continuous for each u ∈ Rd . Proof For each s, t ≥ 0 with t = s, write X (s, t) = X (t) − X (s). Fix u ∈ Rd . Since the map y → ei(u,y) is continuous at the origin, given any  > 0 we can find δ1 > 0 such that

sup |ei(u,y) − 1| < 0≤|y| 0 such that whenever 0 < |t − s| < δ2 , P(|X (s, t)| > δ1 ) < /4.

1.3 L´evy processes

41

Hence for all 0 < |t − s| < δ2 we have



     i(u,X (s)(ω)) i(u,X (s,t)(ω))  e |φ X (t) (u) − φ X (s) (u)| =  e − 1 P(dω) 

≤ |ei(u,y) − 1| p X (s,t) (dy) d R

|ei(u,y) − 1| p X (s,t) (dy) = Bδ1 (0)



+

Bδ1 (0)c

|ei(u,y) − 1| p X (s,t) (dy)

sup |ei(u,y) − 1| + 2P(|X (s, t)| > δ1 )

≤

0≤|y| , P(|A + B| > c) ≤ P |A| > 2 2 where A and B are random variables and c > 0.) Exercise 1.3.6 Show that the sum of two independent L´evy processes is again a L´evy process. (Hint: Use Kac’s theorem to establish independent increments.) Theorem 1.3.7 If X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is a stochastic process and there exists a sequence of L´evy processes (X n , n ∈ N) with each X n = (X n (t), t ≥ 0) such that X n (t) converges in probability to X (t) for each t ≥ 0 and limn→∞ lim supt→0 P(|X n (t) − X (t)| > a) = 0 for all a > 0, then X is a L´evy process. Proof (L1) follows immediately from the fact that (X n (0), n ∈ N) has a subsequence converging to 0 almost surely. For (L2) we obtain stationary increments

1.3 L´evy processes

43

by observing that for each u ∈ Rd , 0 ≤ s < t < ∞,

E(ei(u,X (t)−X (s)) ) = lim E(ei(u,X n (t)−X n (s)) ) n→∞

= lim E(ei(u,X n (t−s)) ) n→∞ i(u,X (t−s))

= E(e

),

where the convergence of the characteristic functions follows by the argument used in the proof of Lemma 1.3.2. The independence of the increments is proved similarly. Finally, to establish (L3), for each a > 0, t ≥ 0, n ∈ N we have

P(|X (t)| > a) ≤ P(|X (t) − X n (t)| + |X n (t)| > a)   a a + P |X n (t)| > ≤ P |X (t) − X n (t)| > 2 2 and hence

lim sup P(|X (t)| > a) t→0   a a + lim sup P |X n (t)| > . ≤ lim sup P |X (t) − X n (t)| > 2 2 t→0 t→0 (1.19) But each X n is a L´evy process and so

  a a = lim P |X n (t)| > = 0, lim sup P |X n (t)| > t→0 2 2 t→0

and the result follows on taking limn→∞ in (1.19).

1.3.1 Examples of L´evy processes Example 1.3.8 (Brownian motion and Gaussian processes) A (standard) Brownian motion in Rd is a L´evy process B = (B(t), t ≥ 0) for which (B1) B(t) ∼ N (0, t I ) for each t ≥ 0, (B2) B has continuous sample paths. It follows immediately from (B1) that if B is a standard Brownian motion then its characteristic function is given by

  φ B(t) (u) = exp − 12 t|u|2

for each u ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0.

44

L´evy processes

We introduce the marginal processes Bi = (Bi (t), t ≥ 0), where each Bi (t) is the ith component of B(t); then it is not difficult to verify that the Bi are mutually independent Brownian motions in R. We will henceforth refer to these as one-dimensional Brownian motions. Brownian motion has been the most intensively studied L´evy process. In the early years of the twentieth century, it was introduced as a model for the physical phenomenon of Brownian motion by Einstein and Smoluchowski and as a description of the dynamical evolution of stock prices by Bachelier. Einstein’s papers on the subject are collected in [92] while Bachelier’s thesis can be found in [16]. The theory was placed on a rigorous mathematical basis by Norbert Wiener [302] in the 1920s; see also [301]. The first part of Nelson [236] contains a historical account of these developments from the physical point of view. We could try to use the Kolmogorov existence theorem (Theorem 1.1.16) to construct one-dimensional Brownian motion from the following prescription on cylinder sets of the form ItH : 1 ,t2 ,...,tn

P(ItH1 ,t2 ,...,tn )

1 = √ n/2 t1 (t2 − t1 ) · · · (tn − tn−1 ) H (2π ) 2 

 1 x1 (x2 − x1 )2 (xn − xn−1 )2 × exp − d x1 · · · d xn . + + ··· + 2 t1 t2 − t1 tn − tn−1 However, the resulting canonical process lives on the space of all mappings from R+ to R and there is then no guarantee that the paths are continuous. A nice account of Wiener’s solution to this problem can be found in [301]. The literature contains a number of ingenious methods for constructing Brownian motion. One of the most delightful of these, originally due to Paley and Wiener [244], obtains Brownian motion in the case d = 1 as a random Fourier series

  √ ∞ 2  sin π t (n + 12 ) B(t) = ξ(n) π n=0 n + 12 for each t ≥ 0, where (ξ(n), n ∈ N∪{0}) is a sequence of i.i.d. N (0, 1) random variables; see Chapter 1 of Knight [171]) for a modern account. A construction of Brownian motion from a wavelet point of view can be found in Steele [288], pp. 35–9.

1.3 L´evy processes

45

We list a number of useful properties of Brownian motion in the case d = 1; this is far from exhaustive and, for further examples as well as details of the proofs, the reader is advised to consult works such as Sato [274], pp. 22–8, Revuz and Yor [260], Rogers and Williams [261], Karatzas and Shreve [167], Knight [171] and Itˆo and McKean [141]. • Brownian motion is locally H¨older continuous with exponent α for every 0 < α < 1/2, i.e. for every T > 0, ω ∈ , there exists K = K (T, ω) such that

|B(t)(ω) − B(s)(ω)| ≤ K |t − s|α for all 0 ≤ s < t ≤ T . • The sample paths t → B(t)(ω) are almost surely nowhere differentiable. • For any sequence (tn , n ∈ N) in R+ with tn ↑ ∞,

lim inf B(tn ) = −∞ a.s., n→∞

lim sup B(tn ) = ∞

a.s.

n→∞

• The law of the iterated logarithm,





 1/2 = 1 = 1 2t log log(1/t)

P lim sup  t↓0

B(t)

holds. For deeper properties of Brownian motion, the reader should consult two volumes by Marc Yor, [307], [308]. Let A be a positive definite symmetric d × d matrix and let σ be a square root of A, so that σ is a d × m matrix for which σ σ T = A. Now let b ∈ Rd and let B be a Brownian motion in Rm . We construct a process C = (C(t), t ≥ 0) in Rd by

C(t) = bt + σ B(t);

(1.20)

then C is a L´evy process with each C(t) ∼ N (tb, t A). It is not difficult to verify that C is also a Gaussian process, i.e. that all its finite-dimensional distributions are Gaussian. It is sometimes called Brownian motion with drift. The L´evy symbol of C is

ηC (u) = i(b, u) − 12 (u, Au).

46

L´evy processes

In the case b = 0, we sometimes write B A (t) = C(t), for each t ≥ 0, and call the process Brownian motion with covariance A. We will show in the next chapter that a L´evy process has continuous sample paths if and only if it is of the form (1.20). Example 1.3.9 (The Poisson process) The Poisson process of intensity λ > 0 is a L´evy process N taking values in N ∪ {0} wherein each N (t) ∼ π(λt), so that we have

P(N (t) = n) =

(λt)n −λt e n!

for each n = 0, 1, 2, . . .. The Poisson process is widely used in applications and there is a wealth of literature concerning it and its generalisations; see e.g. Kingman [169] and references therein. We define non-negative random variables (Tn , N ∪ {0}), usually called waiting times, by T0 = 0 and for n ∈ N

Tn = inf{t ≥ 0; N (t) = n}; it is well known that the Tn are gamma distributed. Moreover, the inter-arrival times Tn − Tn−1 for n ∈ N are i.i.d. and each has exponential distribution with mean 1/λ; see e.g. Grimmett and Stirzaker [123], Section 6.8. The sample paths of N are clearly piecewise constant on finite intervals with ‘jump’ discontinuities of size 1 at each of the random times (Tn , n ∈ N). For later work it is useful to introduce the compensated Poisson process N˜ = ( N˜ (t), t ≥ 0) where each N˜ (t) = N (t) − λt. Note that E( N˜ (t)) = 0 and E( N˜ (t)2 ) = λt for each t ≥ 0 . Example 1.3.10 (The compound Poisson process) Let (Z (n), n ∈ N) be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables taking values in Rd with common law µ Z and let N be a Poisson process of intensity λ that is independent of all the Z (n). The compound Poisson process Y is defined as follows:

Y (t) = Z (1) + · · · + Z (N (t))

(1.21)

for each t ≥ 0, so each Y (t) ∼ π(λt, µ Z ). Proposition 1.3.11 The compound Poisson process Y is a L´evy process.

1.3 L´evy processes

47

Proof To verify (L1) and (L2) is straightforward. To establish (L3), let a > 0; then by conditioning and independence we have

P(|Y (t)| > a) =

∞ 

P(|Z (1) + · · · + Z (n)| > a)P(N (t) = n),

n=0

and the required result follows by dominated convergence. By Proposition 1.2.11 we see that Y has L´evy symbol



ηY (u) =

Rd

(e

i(u,y)

− 1)λµ Z (dy) .

Again the sample paths of Y are piecewise constant on finite intervals with ‘jump discontinuities’ at the random times (T (n), n ∈ N); however, this time the size of the jumps is itself random, and the jump at T (n) can take any value in the range of the random variable Z (n). The compound Poisson process has important applications to models of insurance risk; see e.g. Chapter 1 of Embrechts et al. [94]. Clearly a compound Poisson process is Poisson if and only if d = 1 and each Z (n) = 1 (a.s.), so µ Z = δ1 . The following proposition tells us that two independent Poisson processes must jump at distinct times (a.s.). Proposition 1.3.12 If (N1 (t), t ≥ 0) and (N2 (t), t ≥ 0) are two independent Poisson processes defined on the same probability space, with arrival times ( j) (Tn , n ∈ N) for j = 1, 2, respectively, then

 P Tm(1) = Tn(2)

 for some m, n ∈ N = 0.

Proof Let N (t) = N1 (t) + N2 (t) for each t ≥ 0; then it follows from Exercise 1.3.6 and a straightforward computation of the characteristic function that N is another Poisson process. Hence, for each t ≥ 0, we can write N (t) = Z (1) + · · · + Z (N (t)) where (Z (n), n ∈ N) is i.i.d. with each Z (n) = 1 (a.s.). Now let (1) (2) m, n ∈ N be such that Tm = Tn (a.s.); if these are the first times at which such an event occurs, it follows that Z (m + n − 1) = 2 (a.s.), and we have our required contradiction. Example 1.3.13 (Interlacing processes) Let C be a Gaussian L´evy process as in Example 1.3.8 and Y be a compound Poisson process, as in Example 1.3.10, that is independent of C. Define a new process X by

X (t) = C(t) + Y (t),

48

L´evy processes

for all t ≥ 0; then it is not difficult to verify that X is a L´evy process with L´evy symbol of the form (1.8). The paths of X have jumps of random size occurring at random times. In fact, using the notation of Examples 1.3.9 and 1.3.10, we have

 C(t)    C(T1 ) + Z 1 X (t) = X (T1 ) + C(t) − C(T1 )    X (T2 ) + Z 2

for 0 ≤ t < T1 , for t = T1 , for T1 < t < T2 , for t = T2 ,

and so on recursively. We call this procedure an interlacing, since a continuouspath process is ‘interlaced’ with random jumps. This type of construction will recur throughout the book. In particular, if we examine the proof of Theorem 1.2.14, it seems reasonable that the most general L´evy process might arise as the limit of a sequence of such interlacings, and we will investigate this further in the next chapter. Example 1.3.14 (Stable L´evy processes) A stable L´evy process is a L´evy process X in which each X (t) is a stable random variable. So the L´evy symbol is given by Theorem 1.2.24. Of particular interest is the rotationally invariant case, where the L´evy symbol is given by

η(u) = −σ α |u|α ; here 0 < α ≤ 2 is the index of stability and σ > 0. One reason why stable L´evy processes are important in applications is that they display self-similarity. In general, a stochastic process Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) is self-similar with Hurst index H > 0 if the two processes (Y (at), t ≥ 0) and (a H Y (t), t ≥ 0) have the same finite-dimensional distributions for all a ≥ 0. By examining characteristic functions, it is easily verified that a rotationally invariant stable L´evy process is self-similar with Hurst index H = 1/α, so that e.g. Brownian motion is self-similar with H = 1/2. A nice general account of self-similar processes can be found in Embrechts and Maejima [95]. In particular, it is shown therein that a L´evy process X is self-similar if and only if each X (t) is strictly stable. Just as with Gaussian processes, we can extend the notion of stability beyond the class of stable L´evy processes. In general, then, we say that a stochastic process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is stable if all its finite-dimensional distributions are stable. For a comprehensive introduction to such processes, see Samorodnitsky and Taqqu [271], Chapter 3.

1.3 L´evy processes

49

1.3.2 Subordinators A subordinator is a one-dimensional L´evy process that is non-decreasing (a.s.). Such processes can be thought of as a random model of time evolution, since if T = (T (t), t ≥ 0) is a subordinator we have

T (t) ≥ 0

for each t > 0,

a.s.

and

T (t1 ) ≤ T (t2 )

whenever t1 ≤ t2 .

a.s.

Now since for X (t) ∼ N (0, At) we have P(X (t) ≥ 0) = P(X (t) ≤ 0) = 1/2, it is clear that such a process cannot be a subordinator. More generally we have Theorem 1.3.15 If T is a subordinator, then its L´evy symbol takes the form



η(u) = ibu +

∞

(eiuy − 1)λ(dy),

(1.22)

0

where b ≥ 0 and the L´evy measure λ satisfies the additional requirements



λ(−∞, 0) = 0

∞

and

(y ∧ 1)λ(dy) < ∞.

0

Conversely, any mapping from Rd → C of the form (1.22) is the L´evy symbol of a subordinator. A proof of this can be found in Bertoin [37], Theorem 1.2 (see also Rogers and Williams [261], pp. 78–9). We call the pair (b, λ) the characteristics of the subordinator T . Exercise 1.3.16 Show that the additional constraint on L´evy measures of subordinators is equivalent to the requirement



∞ 0

y λ(dy) < ∞. 1+y

Now for each t ≥ 0 the map u → E(eiuT (t) ) can clearly be analytically continued to the region {iu, u > 0}, and we then obtain the following expression for the Laplace transform of the distribution:

E(e−uT (t) ) = e−tψ(u) ,

50

L´evy processes

where

ψ(u) = −η(iu) = bu +

∞

(1 − e−uy )λ(dy)

(1.23)

0

for each u > 0. We observe that this is much more useful for both theoretical and practical applications than the characteristic function. The function ψ is usually called the Laplace exponent of the subordinator. Examples Example 1.3.17 (The Poisson case) Poisson processes are clearly subordinators. More generally, a compound Poisson process will be a subordinator if and only if the Z (n) in equation (1.21) are all R+ -valued. Example 1.3.18 (α-stable subordinators) Using straightforward calculus (see the appendix at the end of this chapter if you need a hint), we find that for 0 < α < 1, u ≥ 0,

α u = (1 − α) α



∞

(1 − e−ux )

0

dx . x 1+α

Hence by (1.23), Theorem 1.3.15 and Theorem 1.2.20 we see that for each 0 < α < 1 there exists an α-stable subordinator T with Laplace exponent

ψ(u) = u α , and the characteristics of T are (0, λ) where

λ(d x) =

dx α . (1 − α) x 1+α

Note that when we analytically continue this to obtain the L´evy symbol we obtain the form given in Theorem 1.2.21(2), with µ = 0, β = 1 and σ α = cos (απ/2). Example 1.3.19 (The L´evy subordinator) The 12 -stable subordinator has a density given by the L´evy distribution (with µ = 0 and σ = t 2 /2)



f T (t) (s) =

t √

2 π



s −3/2 e−t

2 /(4s)

,

for s ≥ 0. The L´evy subordinator has a nice probabilistic interpretation as a first hitting time for one-dimensional standard Brownian motion (B(t), t ≥ 0).

1.3 L´evy processes

More precisely:

51





t T (t) = inf s > 0; B(s) = √

2

.

(1.24)

For details of this see Revuz and Yor [260], p. 109, and Rogers and Williams [261], p. 133. We will prove this result by using martingale methods in the next chapter (Theorem 2.2.9). Exercise 1.3.20 Show directly that, for each t ≥ 0,

E(e

−uT (t)



∞

)=

e−us f T (t) (s)ds = e−tu , 1/2

0

where (T (t), t ≥ 0) is the L´evy subordinator. (Hint: Write gt (u) = E(e−uT (t) ). Differentiate with respect to u and make the substitution x = t 2 /(4us) to √ obtain the differential equation gt (u) = −(t/2 u)gt (u). Via the substitution √ y = t/(2 s) we see that gt (0) = 1, and the result follows; see also Sato [274] p. 12.) Example 1.3.21 (Inverse Gaussian subordinators) We generalise the L´evy subordinator by replacing the Brownian motion by the Gaussian process C = (C(t), t ≥ 0) where each C(t) = B(t) + γ t and γ ∈ R. The inverse Gaussian subordinator is defined by

T (t) = inf{s > 0; C(s) = δt}, where δ > 0, and is so-called because t → T (t) is the generalised inverse of a Gaussian process. Again by using martingale methods, as in Theorem 2.2.9, we can show that for each t, u > 0,

  $ E(e−uT (t) ) = exp −tδ( 2u + γ 2 − γ )

(1.25)

(see Exercise 2.2.10). In fact each T (t) has a density, and we can easily compute these from (1.25) and the result of Exercise 1.3.20, obtaining

  δt f T (t) (s) = √ eδtγ s −3/2 exp − 12 (t 2 δ 2 s −1 + γ 2 s) 2π

(1.26)

for each s, t ≥ 0. In general any random variable with density f T (1) is called an inverse Gaussian and denoted as IG (δ, γ ).

52

L´evy processes

Example 1.3.22 (Gamma subordinators) Let (T (t), t ≥ 0) be a gamma process with parameters a, b > 0, so that each T (t) has density

f T (t) (x) =

bat at−1 −bx x e , (at)

for x ≥ 0; then it is easy to verify that, for each u ≥ 0,



0

∞

   u −at u  . e−ux f T (t) (x)d x = 1 + = exp −ta log 1 + b b

From here it is a straightforward exercise in calculus to show that



∞

e

−ux



∞

f T (t) (x)d x =

0

(1 − e−ux )ax −1 e−bx d x;

0

see Sato [274] p. 45 if you need a hint. From this we see that (T (t), t ≥ 0) is a subordinator with b = 0 and λ(d x) = ax −1 e−bx d x. Moreover, ψ(u) = a log(1 + u/b) is the associated Bernstein function (see below). Before we go further into the probabilistic properties of subordinators we will make a quick diversion into analysis. Let f ∈ C ∞ ((0, ∞)) with f ≥ 0. We say f is completely monotone if (−1)n f (n) ≥ 0 for all n ∈ N and a Bernstein function if (−1)n f (n) ≤ 0 for all n ∈ N. We then have the following: Theorem 1.3.23 (1) f is a Bernstein function if and only if the mapping x → e−t f (x) is completely monotone for all t ≥ 0. (2) f is a Bernstein function if and only if it has the representation



∞

f (x) = a + bx +

(1 − e−yx )λ(dy)

0

∞

for all x > 0, where a, b ≥ 0 and 0 (y ∧ 1)λ(dy) < ∞. (3) g is completely monotone if and only if there exists a measure µ on [0, ∞) for which



g(x) =

∞

e−x y µ(dy).

0

A proof of this theorem can be found in Berg and Forst [35], pp. 61–72. To interpret this theorem, first consider the case a = 0. In this case, if we compare the statement in theorem 1.3.23(2) with equation (1.23), we see that

1.3 L´evy processes

53

there is a one-to-one correspondence between Bernstein functions for which limx→0 f (x) = 0 and Laplace exponents of subordinators. The Laplace transforms of the laws of subordinators are always completely monotone functions, and a subclass of all possible measures µ appearing in Theorem 1.3.23(3) is given by all possible laws pT (t) associated with subordinators. Now let f be a general Bernstein function with a > 0. We can give it a probabilistic interpretation as follows. Let T be the subordinator with Laplace exponent ψ(u) = f (u) − a for each u ≥ 0 and let S be an exponentially distributed random variable with parameter a independent of T , so that S has the pdf g S (x) = ae−ax for each x ≥ 0. Now define a process TS = (TS (t), t ≥ 0), which takes values in R+ ∪ {∞} and which we will call a killed subordinator, by the prescription



TS (t) =

T (t) ∞

for 0 ≤ t < S, for t ≥ S.

Proposition 1.3.24 There is a one-to-one correspondence between killed subordinators T (S) and Bernstein functions f , given by

E(e−uTS (t) ) = e−t f (u) for each t, u ≥ 0. Proof By independence, we have

E(e−uTS (t) ) = E(e−uTS (t) χ[0,S) (t)) + E(e−uTS (t) χ[S,∞) (t)) = E(e−uT (t) ) P(S ≥ t) = e−t[ψ(u)+a] , where we have adopted the convention e−∞ = 0. One of the most important probabilistic applications of subordinators is to ‘time changing’. Let X be an arbitrary L´evy process and let T be a subordinator defined on the same probability space as X such that X and T are independent. We define a new stochastic process Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) by the prescription

Z (t) = X (T (t)), for each t ≥ 0, so that for each ω ∈ , Z (t)(ω) = X (T (t)(ω))(ω). The key result is then the following. Theorem 1.3.25 Z is a L´evy process.

54

L´evy processes

Proof (L1) is trivial. To establish (L2) we first prove stationary increments. Let 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < ∞ and A ∈ B(Rd ). We denote as pt1 ,t2 the joint probability law of T (t1 ) and T (t2 ); then by the independence of X and T and the fact that X has stationary increments we find that

    P Z (t2 ) − Z (t1 ) ∈ A = P X (T (t2 )) − X (T (t1 )) ∈ A

∞ ∞   P X (s2 ) − X (s1 ) ∈ A pt1 ,t2 (ds1 , ds2 ) =

0

0



  P X (s2 − s1 ) ∈ A pt1 ,t2 (ds1 , ds2 ) 0 0   = P Z (t2 − t1 ) ∈ A .

=

∞

∞

For independent increments, let 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < t3 < ∞. We write pt1 ,t2 ,t3 for the joint probability law of T (t1 ), T (t2 ) and T (t3 ). For arbitrary y ∈ Rd , define h y : R+ → C by h y (s) = E(ei(y,X (s)) ) and, for arbitrary y1 , y2 ∈ Rd , define f y1 ,y2 : R+ × R+ × R+ → C by

  f y1 ,y2 (u 1 , u 2 , u 3 ) = E exp[i(y1 , X (u 2 ) − X (u 1 ))]

 × E(exp[i(y2 , X (u 3 ) − X (u 2 ))] ,

where 0 ≤ u 1 < u 2 < u 3 < ∞. By conditioning, using the independence of X and T and the fact that X has independent increments we obtain

  E exp{i[(y1 , Z (t2 ) − Z (t1 )) + (y2 , Z (t3 ) − Z (t2 ))]}   = E f y1 ,y2 (T (t1 ), T (t2 ), T (t3 )) . However, since X has stationary increments, we have that

f y1 ,y2 (u 1 , u 2 , u 3 ) = h y1 (u 2 − u 1 )h y2 (u 3 − u 2 ) for each 0 ≤ u 1 < u 2 < u 3 < ∞. Hence, by the independent increments property of T , we obtain

  E exp{i[(y1 , Z (t2 ) − Z (t1 )) + (y2 , Z (t3 ) − Z (t2 ))]} = E(h y1 (T2 − T1 )h y2 (T3 − T2 )) = E(h y1 (T2 − T1 )) E(h y2 (T3 − T2 ))     = E exp [i(y1 , Z (t2 − t1 ))] E exp [i(y2 , Z (t3 − t2 ))] , by the independence of X and T .

1.3 L´evy processes

55

The fact that Z (t2 ) − Z (t1 ) and Z (t3 ) − Z (t2 ) are independent now follows by Kac’s theorem from the fact that Z has stationary increments, which was proved above. The extension to n time intervals is by a similar argument; see also Sato [274], pp. 199–200. We now establish (L3). Since X and T are stochastically continuous, we know that, for any a ∈ Rd , if we are given any  > 0 then we can find δ > 0  such that 0 < h < δ ⇒ P(|X (h)| > a) < /2, and we can find δ > 0 such  that 0 < h < δ ⇒ P(T (h) > δ) < /2.  Now, for all t ≥ 0 and all 0 ≤ h < min{δ, δ }, we have

P(|Z (h)| > a)



∞

P(|X (u)| > a) pT (h) (du) = P(|X (T (h))| > a) = 0



P(|X (u)| > a) pT (h) (du) + P(|X (u)| > a) pT (h) (du) = [0,δ)

[δ,∞)

≤ sup P(|X (u)| > a) + P(T (h) ≥ δ) 0≤u 0 is as in (1.25). Note that the relativistic process considered in Example 1.3.29 above is a special case of this wherein µ = β = 0, δ = c and α = mc. Each Z (t) has a density given by



f Z (t) (x) = C(α, β, δ, µ; t)q for each x ∈ R, where q(x) =

√

x − µt δt

−1





K 1 δt αq

1 + x 2;

C(α, β, δ, µ; t) = π −1 αeδt

√

x − µt δt



eβx ,

α 2 −β 2 −βµt

and K 1 is a Bessel function of the third kind (see Subsection 5.6). For further details see Barndorff-Nielsen [27, 28] and Carr et al. [67]. We now return to general considerations and probe a little more deeply into the structure of η Z . To this end we define a Borel measure m X,T on Rd − {0} by



m X,T (A) = 0

∞

p X (t) (A)λ(dt)

58

L´evy processes

for each A ∈ B(Rd − {0}); λ is the L´evy measure of the subordinator T. ∞ In fact, m X,T is a L´evy measure satisfying the stronger condition 0 (|y| ∧ 1)m X,T (dy) < ∞. You can derive this from the fact that for any L´evy process X there exists a constant C ≥ 0 such that for each t ≥ 0

   E X (t); |X (t)| ≤ 1  ≤ C(t ∧ 1); see Sato [274] p. 198, Lemma 30.3, for a proof of this. Theorem 1.3.33 For each u ∈ Rd ,



η Z (u) = bη X +

Rd

(ei(u,y) − 1)m X,T (dy).

Proof By Proposition 1.3.27, (1.23) and Fubini’s theorem we find that



η Z (u) = bη X (u) +

∞

(esη X (u) − 1)λ(ds)

0

= bη X (u) +

∞

0

= bη X (u) +

∞

Rd

0

= bη X (u) +

[E(ei(u,X (s)) ) − 1]λ(ds)

Rd

(ei(u,y) − 1) p X (s) (dy)λ(ds)

(ei(u,y) − 1)m X,T (dy).

More results about subordinators can be found in Bertoin’s Saint-Flour lectures on the subject [37], Chapter 6 of Sato [274] and Chapter 3 of Bertoin [36].

1.4 Convolution semigroups of probability measures In this section, we look at an important characterisation of L´evy processes. We begin with a definition. Let ( pt , t ≥ 0) be a family of probability measures on Rd . We say that it is weakly convergent to δ0 if



lim t↓0

for all f ∈ Cb (Rd ).

Rd

f (y) pt (dy) = f (0)

1.4 Convolution semigroups of probability measures

59

Proposition 1.4.1 If X is a stochastic process wherein X (t) has law pt for each t ≥ 0 and X (0) = 0 (a.s.) then ( pt , t ≥ 0) is weakly convergent to δ0 if and only if X is stochastically continuous at t = 0. Proof First assume that X is stochastically continuous at t = 0 and suppose that f ∈ Cb (Rd ) with f = 0; then given any  > 0 there exists δ > 0 such  that supx∈Bδ (0) | f (x) − f (0)| ≤ /2 and there exists δ > 0 such that 0 < t <  δ ⇒ P(|X (t)| > δ) < /(4M), where M = supx∈Rd | f (x)|. For such t we then find that



  

 Rd

≤

  f (x) − f (0) pt (d x) 



Bδ (0)

| f (x) − f (0)| pt (d x) +

Bδ (0)c

| f (x) − f (0)| pt (d x)

≤ sup | f (x) − f (0)| + 2M P(X (t) ∈ Bδ (0)c ) x∈Bδ (0)

< . Conversely, suppose that ( pt , t ≥ 0) is weakly convergent to δ0 . We use the argument of Malliavin et al. [207], pp. 98–9. Fix r > 0 and  > 0. Let f ∈ Cb (Rd ) with support in Br (0) be such that 0 ≤ f ≤ 1 and f (0) > 1 − (/2). By weak convergence we can find t0 > 0 such that



 0 ≤ t < t0 ⇒ 

 Rd

   f (y) − f (0) pt (dy) < . 2 

We then find that

P(|X (t)| > r ) = 1 − P(|X (t)| ≤ r )



f (y) pt (dy) = 1 − ≤1− Br (0)

= 1 − f (0) +
0. Then the following are equivalent: (1) X is recurrent; (2)



lim q↓0

Ba (0)

(3)





lim sup q↓0

 1 du = ∞; q − η(u)

Ba (0)



 1 du = ∞. q − η(u)

Theorem 1.5.2 (Spitzer criterion) X is recurrent if and only if



 1 du = ∞,  −η(u) Ba (0) 

for any a > 0. The Chung–Fuchs criterion is proved in Sato [274], pp. 252–3, as is the ‘only if’ part of the Spitzer criterion. For the full story, see the original

1.5 Some further directions in L´evy processes

65

papers by Port and Stone [252], but readers should be warned that these are demanding. By application of the Spitzer criterion, we see immediately that Brownian motion is recurrent for d = 1, 2 and that for d = 1 every α-stable process is recurrent if 1 ≤ α < 2 and transient if 0 < α < 1. For d = 2, all strictly αstable processes are transient when 0 < α < 2. For d ≥ 3, every L´evy process is transient. Further results with detailed proofs can be found in Chapter 7 of Sato [274]. A spectacular application of the recurrence and transience of L´evy processes to quantum physics can be found in Carmona et al. [64]. Here the existence of bound states for relativistic Schr¨odinger operators is shown to be intimately connected with the recurrence of a certain associated L´evy process, whose L´evy symbol is precisely that of the relativistic distribution discussed in Subsection 1.2.6.

1.5.2 Wiener–Hopf factorisation Let X be a one-dimensional L´evy process with c`adl`ag paths (see Chapter 2 for more about these) and define the extremal processes M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) and N = (N (t), t ≥ 0) by

M(t) = sup X (s)

N (t) = inf X (s).

and

0≤s≤t

0≤s≤t

Fluctuation theory for L´evy processes studies the behaviour of a L´evy process in the neighbourhood of its suprema (or equivalently its infima) and a nice introduction to this subject is given in Chapter 6 of Bertoin [36]. One of the most fundamental and beautiful results in the area is the Wiener– Hopf factorisation, which we now describe. First we fix q > 0; then there exist two infinitely divisible characteristic functions φq+ and φq− , defined as follows:

φq+ (u) φq− (u)



= exp

∞

t

−1 −qt

= exp

∞

t 0

∞

e

0





−1 −qt



(e

0 0

e

−∞

− 1) p X (t) (d x)dt ,

iux (e − 1) p X (t) (d x)dt , iux

for each u ∈ R. The Wiener–Hopf factorisation identities yield a remarkable factorisation of the Laplace transform of the joint characteristic function of X and M − X in terms of φq+ and φq− . More precisely we have:

66

L´evy processes

Theorem 1.5.3 (Wiener–Hopf factorisation) For each q, t > 0, x, y ∈ R,



  e−qt E exp(i{x M(t) + y[X (t) − M(t)]}) dt

∞   e−qt E exp(i{y N (t) + x[X (t) − N (t)]}) dt =q

∞

q 0

0

= φq+ (x)φq− (y). For a proof and related results, see Chapter 9 of Sato [274]. In Prabhu [253], Wiener–Hopf factorisation and other aspects of fluctuation theory for L´evy processes are applied to a class of ‘storage problems’ that includes models for the demand of water from dams, insurance risk, queues and inventories.

1.5.3 Local times The local time of a L´evy process is a random field that, for each x ∈ Rd , describes the amount of time spent by the process at x in the interval [0, t]. More precisely we define a measurable mapping L : Rd × R+ ×  → R+ by

1 L(x, t) = lim sup 2 ↓0



t

χ{|X (s)−x|0 Ft+ . Given a filtration (Ft , t ≥ 0) we can always enlarge it to satisfy the completeness property (1) by the following trick. Let N denote the collection of all sets of P-measure zero in F and define Gt = Ft ∨ N for each t ≥ 0; then (Gt , t ≥ 0) is another filtration of F, which we call the augmented filtration. The following then hold: • any Ft -adapted stochastic process is Gt -adapted; • for any integrable random variable Y defined on (, F, P), we have E(Y |Gt ) = E(Y |Ft ) (a.s.) for each t ≥ 0. If X is a stochastic process with natural filtration F X then we denote the augmented filtration as G X and call it the augmented natural filtration. The right-continuity property (2) is more problematic than (1) and needs to be established on a case by case basis. In the next section we will show that it always holds for the augmented natural filtration of a L´evy process, but we will need to employ martingale techniques. 2.1.2 Martingales and L´evy processes Let X be an adapted process defined on a filtered probability space that also satisfies the integrability requirement E(|X (t)|) < ∞ for all t ≥ 0. We say that it is a martingale if, for all 0 ≤ s < t < ∞,

E(X (t)|Fs ) = X (s)

a.s.

Note that if X is a martingale then the map t → E(X (t)) is constant. We will find the martingale described in the following proposition to be of great value later. Proposition 2.1.3 If X is a L´evy process with L´evy symbol η, then, for each u ∈ Rd , Mu = (Mu (t), t ≥ 0) is a complex martingale with respect to F X , where each

  Mu (t) = exp i(u, X (t)) − tη(u) .

2.1 Martingales

73

Proof E(|Mu (t)|) = exp [−tη(u)] < ∞ for each t ≥ 0. For each 0 ≤ s ≤ t, write Mu (t) = Mu (s) exp [i(u, X (t) − X (s))− (t − s)η(u)]; then by (L2) and Theorem 1.3.3

     E(Mu (t)|FsX ) = Mu (s) E exp i(u, X (t − s)) , exp − (t − s)η(u) = Mu (s) as required. Exercise 2.1.4 Show that the following processes, whose values at each t ≥ 0 are given below, are all martingales. (1) C(t) = σ B(t), where B(t) is a standard Brownian motion and σ is an r × d matrix. (2) |C(t)|2 − tr(A) t, where A = σ T σ . (3) exp [(u, C(t)) − 12 (u, Au)] where u ∈ Rd . (4) N˜ (t) where N˜ is a compensated Poisson process with intensity λ (see Subsection 1.3.1). (5) N˜ (t)2 − λt. (6) (E(Y |Ft ), t ≥ 0) where Y is an arbitrary random variable in a filtered probability space for which E(|Y |) < ∞. Martingales that are of the form (6) above are called closed. Note that in (1) to (5) the martingales have mean zero. In general, martingales with this latter property are said to be centred. A martingale M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) is said to be L 2 (or square-integrable) if E(|M(t)|2 ) < ∞ for each t ≥ 0 and is continuous if it has almost surely continuous sample paths. One useful generalisation of the martingale concept is the following. An adapted process X for which E(|X (t)|) < ∞ for all t ≥ 0 is a submartingale if, for all 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, 1 ≤ i ≤ d,

E(X i (t)|Fs ) ≥ X i (s)

a.s.

We call X a supermartingale if −X is a submartingale. By a straightforward application of the conditional form of Jensen’s inequality we see that if X is a real-valued martingale and if f : R → R is convex with E(| f (X (t))|) < ∞ for all t ≥ 0 then f (X ) is a submartingale. In particular, if each X (t) ≥ 0 (a.s.) then (X (t) p , t ≥ 0) is a submartingale whenever 1 < p < ∞ and E(|X (t)| p ) < ∞ for all t ≥ 0. A vital estimate for much of our future work is the following:

74

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Theorem 2.1.5 (Doob’s martingale inequality) If (X (t), t ≥ 0) is a positive submartingale then, for any p > 1,





E

sup X (s)

p

≤ q p E(X (t) p ),

0≤s≤t

where 1/ p + 1/q = 1. See Williams [304], p. A143, for a nice proof in the discrete-time case and Dellacherie and Meyer [78], p. 18, or Revuz and Yor [260], Section 2.1, for the continuous case. Note that in the case p = 2 this inequality also holds for vector-valued martingales, and we will use this extensively below. More precisely, let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a martingale taking values in Rd . Then the component (X i (t)2 , t ≥ 0) is a real-valued submartingale for each 1 ≤ i ≤ d and so, by Theorem 2.1.5, we have for each t ≥ 0





E

sup |X (s)| 0≤s≤t

2

 d d  2 ≤ E sup X i (s) ≤ q 2 E(X i (t)2 ) i=1 2

0≤s≤t

i=1

= q E(|X (t)| ). 2

We will also need the following technical result. Theorem 2.1.6 Let M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) be a submartingale. (1) For any countable dense subset D of R+ , the following left and right limits exist and are almost surely finite for each t > 0:

M(t−) = lim M(s); s∈D,s↑t

M(t+) = lim M(s). s∈D,s↓t

(2) If the filtration (Ft , t ≥ 0) satisfies the usual hypotheses and if the map t → E(M(t)) is right-continuous, then M has a c`adl`ag modification. In fact (2) is a consequence of (1), and these results are both proved in Dellacherie and Meyer [78], pp. 73–6, and in Revuz and Yor [260], pp. 63–5. The proofs of the next two results are based closely on the accounts of Bretagnolle [61] and of Protter [255], Chapter 1, Section 4. Theorem 2.1.7 Every L´evy process has a c`adl`ag modification that is itself a L´evy process. Proof Let X be a L´evy process that is adapted to its own augmented natural filtration. For each u ∈ Rd we recall the martingales Mu of Proposition 2.1.3. Let D be a countable, dense subset of R+ . It follows immediately from

2.1 Martingales

75

Theorem 2.1.6(1) that at each t > 0 the left and right limits Mu (t−) and Mu (t+) exist along D almost surely. Now for each u ∈ Rd , let Ou be that subset of  for which these limits fail to exist; then O = u∈Qd Ou is also a set of P-measure zero. Fix ω ∈ Oc and for each t ≥ 0 let (sn , n ∈ N) be a sequence in D increasing to t. Let x 1 (t)(ω) and x 2 (t)(ω) be two distinct accumulation points of the set {X (sn )(ω), n ∈ N}, corresponding to limits along subsequences (sn i , n i ∈ N) and (sn j , n j ∈ N), respectively. We deduce from the existence of Mu (t−) that limsn ↑t ei(u,X (sn )(ω)) exists and hence that x 1 (t)(ω) and x 2 (t)(ω) are both finite. Now choose u ∈ Qd such that (u, xt1 (ω) − xt2 (ω)) = 2nπ for any n ∈ Z. By continuity,

lim ei(u,X (sni )(ω)) = ei(u,xt (ω)) and lim ei(u,X (sn j )(ω)) = ei(u,xt (ω)) , 1

2

sni ↑t

sn j ↑t

and so we obtain a contradiction. Hence X always has a unique left limit along D, at every t > 0 on Oc . A similar argument shows that it always has such right limits on Oc . It then follows from elementary real analysis that the process Y is c`adl`ag, where for each t ≥ 0

Y (t)(ω) =

lims∈D,s↓t X (t)(ω) 0

if ω ∈ Oc , if ω ∈ O.

To see that Y is a modification of X , we use the dominated convergence theorem for each t ≥ 0 to obtain

E(ei(u,Y (t)−X (t)) ) = lim E(ei(u,X (s)−X (t)) ) = 1, s∈D,s↓t

by (L2) and (L3) in Section 1.3 and Lemma 1.3.2. Hence P({ω, Y (t)(ω) = X (t)(ω)}) = 1 as required. That Y is a L´evy process now follows immediately from Lemma 1.4.7. Example 2.1.8 It follows that the canonical L´evy process discussed in Subsection 1.4.1 has a c`adl`ag version that lives on the space of all c`adl`ag paths starting at zero. A classic result, originally due to Norbert Wiener (see [301, 302]), modifies the path-space construction to show that there is a Brownian motion that lives on the space of continuous paths starting at zero. We will see below that a general L´evy process has continuous sample paths if and only if it is Gaussian. We can now complete our discussion of the usual hypotheses for L´evy processes.

76

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Theorem 2.1.9 If X is a L´evy process with c`adl`ag paths, then its augmented natural filtration is right-continuous. Proof For convenience, we will write G X = G. First note that it is sufficient to prove that

Gt =



Gt+1/n

n∈N

for each t ≥ 0, so all limits as w ↓ t can be replaced by limits as n → ∞. Fix t, s1 , . . . , sm ≥ 0 and u 1 , . . . , u m ∈ Rd . Our first task is to establish that





E exp i

m  j=1



  (u j , X (s j )) Gt







= E exp i

m 

   (u j , X (s j )) Gt+ . 

j=1

(2.1) Now, (2.1) is clearly satisfied when max1≤ j≤m s j ≤ t and the general case follows easily when it is established for min1≤ j≤m s j > t, as follows. We take m = 2 for simplicity and consider s2 > s1 > t. Our strategy makes repeated use of the martingales described in Proposition 2.1.3. We begin by applying Proposition 1.1.5 to obtain

    E exp i[(u 1 , X (s1 )) + (u 2 , X (s2 ))] Gt+    = lim E exp{i[(u 1 , X (s1 )) + (u 2 , X (s2 ))]}Gw w↓t        = exp s2 η(u 2 ) lim E exp i(u 1 , X (s1 )) Mu 2 (s2 )Gw w↓t        = exp s2 η(u 2 ) lim E exp i(u 1 , X (s1 )) Mu 2 (s1 )Gw w↓t       = exp (s2 − s1 )η(u 2 ) lim E exp i(u 1 + u 2 , X (s1 )) Gw w↓t   = exp (s2 − s1 )η(u 2 ) + s1 η(u 1 + u 2 ) lim E(Mu 1 +u 2 (s1 )|Gw ) w↓t   = exp (s2 − s1 )η(u 2 ) + s1 η(u 1 + u 2 ) lim Mu 1 +u 2 (w) w↓t   = lim exp i(u 1 + u 2 , X (w)) w↓t   × exp (s2 − s1 )η(u 2 ) + (s1 − w)η(u 1 + u 2 )     = exp i(u 1 + u 2 , X (t)) exp (s2 − s1 )η(u 2 ) + (s1 − t)η(u 1 + u 2 )     = E exp i[(u 1 , X (s1 )) + (u 2 , X (s2 ))] Gt , where, in the penultimate step, we have used the fact that X is c`adl`ag.

2.1 Martingales

77

Now let X (m) = (X (s1 ), . . . , X (sm )); then by the unique correspondence between characteristic functions and probability measures we deduce that

P(X (m) |Gt+ ) = P(X (m) |Gt )

a.s.

and hence, by equation (1.1), we have

      E g(X (s1 ), . . . , X (sm )))Gt+ = E g(X (s1 ), . . . , X (sm )))Gt for all g : Rdm → R with E(|g(X (s1 ), . . . , X (sm ))|) < ∞. In particular, if we vary t, m and s1 , . . . , sm we can deduce that

P(A|Gt+ ) = P(A|Gt ) for all A ∈ G∞ . Now, suppose that A ∈ Gt+ ; then we have

χ A = P(A|Gt+ ) = P(A|Gt ) = E(χ A |Gt )

a.s.

Hence, since Gt is augmented, we deduce that Gt+ ⊆ Gt and the result follows. Some readers may feel that using the augmented natural filtration is an unnecessary restriction. After all, nature may present us with a practical situation wherein the filtration is much larger. To deal with such circumstances we will, for the remainder of this book, always make the following assumptions: • (, F, P) is a fixed probability space equipped with a filtration (Ft , t ≥ 0) that satisfies the usual hypotheses; • every L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is assumed to be Ft -adapted and to have c`adl`ag sample paths; • X (t) − X (s) is independent of Fs for all 0 ≤ s < t < ∞. Theorems 2.1.7 and 2.1.9 confirm that these are quite reasonable assumptions. 2.1.3 Martingale spaces We can define an equivalence relation on the set of all martingales on a probability space by the prescription that M1 ∼ M2 if and only if M1 is a modification of M2 . Note that by Theorem 2.1.6 each equivalence class contains a c`adl`ag member. Let M be the linear space of equivalence classes of Ft -adapted L 2 martingales and define a (separating) family of seminorms (|| · ||t , t ≥ 0) by

78

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

the prescription

||M||t = E(|X (t)|2 )1/2 ; then M becomes a locally convex space with the topology induced by these seminorms (see Chapter 1 of Rudin [267]). We call M a martingale space. For those unfamiliar with these notions, the key point is that a sequence (Mn , n ∈ N) in M converges to N ∈ M if ||Mn − N ||t → 0 as n → ∞ for all t ≥ 0. Lemma 2.1.10 M is complete. Proof By the completeness of L 2 , any Cauchy sequence (Mn , n ∈ N) in M has a limit N that is an Ft -adapted process with E(|N (t)|2 ) < ∞ for all t ≥ 0. We are done if we can show that N is a martingale. We use the facts that each Mn is a martingale and that the conditional expectation Es = E(·|Fs ) is an L 2 -projection (and therefore a contraction). Hence, for each 0 ≤ s < t < ∞,

    E |N (s) − Es (N (t))|2 = E |N (s) − Mn (s) + Mn (s) − Es (N (t))|2

≤ 2||N (s) − Mn (s)||2 + 2||Es (Mn (t) − N (t))||2 ≤ 2||N (s) − Mn (s)||2 + 2||Mn (t) − N (t)||2 → 0 as n → ∞, where ||·|| without a subscript is the usual L 2 -norm; the required result follows. Exercise 2.1.11 Define another family of seminorms on M by the prescription



||M||t =

1/2

sup E(|M(s)| ) 2

0≤s≤t

for each M ∈ M, t ≥ 0. Show that (||·||t , t ≥ 0) and (||·||t , t ≥ 0) induce equivalent topologies on M. (Hint: Use Doob’s inequality.) In what follows, when we speak of a process M ∈ M we will always understand M to be the c`adl`ag member of its equivalence class. 2.2 Stopping times A stopping time is a random variable T :  → [0, ∞] for which the event (T ≤ t) ∈ Ft for each t ≥ 0.

2.2 Stopping times

79

Any ordinary deterministic time is clearly a stopping time. A more interesting example, which has many important applications, is the first hitting time T A of a process to a set. This is defined as follows. Let X be an Ft -adapted c`adl`ag process and A ∈ B(Rd ); then

TA = inf{t ≥ 0; X (t) ∈ A}, where we adopt the convention that inf{∅} = ∞. It is fairly straightforward to prove that T A really is a stopping time if A is open or closed (see e.g. Protter [255], p. 5). The general case is more problematic; see e.g. Rogers and Williams [261], Chapter II, section 76, and references therein. If X is an adapted process and T is a stopping time (with respect to the same filtration) then the stopped random variable X (T ) is defined by

X (T )(ω) = X (T (ω))(ω) (with the convention that X(∞)(ω) = limt→∞ X(t)(ω) if the limit exists (a.s.) and X (∞)(ω) = 0 otherwise) and the stopped σ -algebra FT by

FT = {A ∈ F; A ∩ {T ≤ t} ∈ Ft , ∀t ≥ 0}. If X is c`adl`ag, it can be shown that X (T ) is FT -measurable (see e.g. Kunita [182], p. 8). A key application of these concepts is in providing the following ‘random time’ version of the martingale notion. Theorem 2.2.1 (Doob’s optional stopping theorem) If X is a c`adl`ag martingale and S and T are bounded stopping times for which S ≤ T (a.s.), then X (S) and X (T ) are both integrable, with

E(X (T )|F S ) = X (S)

a.s.

See Williams [304], p. 100, for a proof in the discrete case and Dellacherie and Meyer [78], pp. 8–9, or Revuz and Yor [260], Section 2.3, for the continuous case. An immediate corollary is that

E(X (T )) = E(X (0)) for each bounded stopping time T . Exercise 2.2.2 If S and T are stopping times and α ≥ 1, show that S + T , αT , S ∧ T and S ∨ T are also stopping times.

80

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

If T is an unbounded stopping time and one wants to employ Theorem 2.2.1, a useful trick is to replace T by the bounded stopping times T ∧n (where n ∈ N) and then take the limit as n → ∞ to obtain the required result. This procedure is sometimes called localisation. Another useful generalisation of the martingale concept that we will use extensively is the local martingale. This is an adapted process M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) for which there exists a sequence of stopping times τ1 ≤ · · · ≤ τn → ∞ (a.s.) such that each of the processes (M(t ∧ τn ), t ≥ 0) is a martingale. Any martingale is clearly a local martingale. For an example of a local martingale that is not a martingale see Protter [255], p. 33. 2.2.1 The Doob–Meyer decomposition Do not worry too much about the technical details in this section unless, of course, they appeal to you. The main reason for including this material is to introduce the Meyer angle bracket ·, and you should concentrate on getting a sound intuition about how this works. In Exercise 2.1.4 we saw that if B is a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion and N˜ is a compensated Poisson process of intensity λ then B and N˜ are both martingales and, furthermore, so are the processes defined by B(t)2 −t and N˜ 2 − λt, for each t ≥ 0. It is natural to ask whether this behaviour extends to more general martingales. Before we can answer this question, we need some further definitions. We take d = 1 throughout this section. Let I be some index set and X = {X i , i ∈ I} be a family of random variables. We say X is uniformly integrable if

  lim sup E |X i |χ{|X i |>n} = 0.

n→∞ i∈I

A sufficient condition for this to hold is that E(supi∈I |X i |) < ∞; see e.g. Klebaner [170], pp. 171–2, or Williams [304], p. 128. Let M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) be a closed martingale, so that M(t) = E(X |Ft ), for each t ≥ 0, for some random variable X where E(|X |) ≤ ∞; then it is easy to see that M is uniformly integrable. Conversely, any uniformly integrable martingale is closed; see e.g. Dellacherie and Meyer [78], p. 79. A process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is in the Dirichlet class or class D if {X (τ ), τ ∈ T } is uniformly integrable, where T is the family of all finite stopping times on our filtered probability space. The process X is integrable if E(|X (t)|) < ∞, for each t ≥ 0. The process X is predictable if the mapping X : R+ ×  → R given by X (t, ω) = X (t)(ω) is measurable with respect to the smallest σ -algebra generated by all adapted left-continuous mappings from R+ ×  → R. The

2.2 Stopping times

81

idea of predictability is very important in the theory of stochastic integration and will be developed more extensively in Chapter 4. Our required generalisation is then the following result. Theorem 2.2.3 (Doob–Meyer 1) Let Y be a submartingale of class D; then there exists a unique predictable, integrable, increasing process A = (A(t), t ≥ 0) with A(0) = 0 (a.s.) such that the process given by Y (t) − Y (0) − A(t) for each t ≥ 0 is a uniformly integrable martingale. The discrete-time version of this result is due to Doob [83] and is rather easy to prove (see e.g. Williams [304], p. 121). Its extension to continuous time is much harder and was carried out by Meyer in [222], [223]. For more recent accounts see e.g. Karatzas and Shreve [167], pp. 24–5, or Rogers and Williams [262], Chapter 6, Section 6. In the case where each Y (t) = M(t)2 for a square-integrable martingale M, it is common to use the ‘inner-product’ notation M, M(t) = A(t) for each t ≥ 0 and we call M, M Meyer’s angle-bracket process. This notation was originally introduced by Motoo and Watanabe [232]. The logic behind it is as follows. Let M, N ∈ M; then we may use the polarisation identity to define

M, N (t) =

1 4



 M + N , M + N (t) − M − N , M − N (t) .

Exercise 2.2.4 Show that

M(t)N (t) − M, N (t) is a martingale. Exercise 2.2.5 Deduce that, for each t ≥ 0; (1) M, N (t) = N , M(t); (2) α M1 +β M2 , N (t) = αM1 , N (t)+βM2 , N (t) for each M1 , M2 ∈ M and α, β ∈ R; (3) E(M, N (t)2 ) ≤ E(M, M(t)) E(N , N (t)), the equality holding if and only if M(t) = cN (t) (a.s.) for some c ∈ R. (Hint: Mimic the proof of the usual Cauchy–Schwarz inequality.) The Doob–Meyer theorem has been considerably generalised and, although we will not have need of it, we quote the following more powerful result, a proof of which can be found in Protter [255] p. 94. Theorem 2.2.6 (Doob–Meyer 2) Any submartingale Y has a decomposition Y (t) = Y (0) + M(t) + A(t), where A is an increasing, adapted process and M is a local martingale.

82

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Note that the processes A that appear in Theorem 2.2.6 may not be predictable in general; however, there is a unique one that is ‘locally natural’, in a sense made precise in Protter [255], p. 89. We close this section by quoting an important theorem – L´evy’s martingale characterisation of Brownian motion – which will play an important role below. Theorem 2.2.7 Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be an adapted process with continuous sample paths having mean 0 and covariance E(X i (t)X j (s)) = ai j (s ∧ t) for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, s,t ≥ 0; where a = (ai j ) is a positive definite symmetric d × d matrix. Then the following are equivalent: (1) X is a Brownian motion with covariance a; (2) X is a martingale with X i , X j (t) =  ai j t for each 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, t ≥ 0; (3) exp [i(u, X (t)) + 2t (u, au)], t ≥ 0 is a martingale for each u ∈ Rd . We postpone a proof until Chapter 4, where we can utilise Itˆo’s formula for Brownian motion. In fact it is the following consequence that we will need in this chapter. Corollary 2.2.8 If X is a L´evy process satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 2.2.7 then X is a Brownian motion if and only if

E(ei(u,X (t)) ) = e−t (u,au)/2 for each t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd . Proof The result is an easy consequence of Proposition 2.1.3 and Theorem 2.2.7(3). 2.2.2 Stopping times and L´evy processes We now give three applications of stopping times to L´evy processes. We begin by again considering the L´evy subordinator (see Subsection 1.3.2). Theorem 2.2.9 Let B = (B(t), t ≥ 0) be a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion and for each t ≥ 0 define



t T (t) = inf s > 0; B(s) = √

2

;

then T = (T (t), t ≥ 0) is the L´evy subordinator. Proof (cf. Rogers and Williams [261] p. 18). Clearly each T (t) is a stopping time. By Exercise 2.1.4(2), the process given for each θ ∈ R by Mθ (t) = exp[θ B(t) − 12 θ 2 t] is a continuous martingale with respect to the

2.2 Stopping times

83

augmented natural filtration for Brownian motion. By Theorem 2.2.1, for each t ≥ 0, n ∈ N, θ ≥ 0, we have

   1 = E exp θ B(T (t) ∧ n) − 12 θ 2 (T (t) ∧ n) . Now for each n ∈ N, t ≥ 0, let An,t = {ω ∈ ; T (t)(ω) ≤ n}; then

   E exp θ B(T (t) ∧ n) − 12 θ 2 (T (t) ∧ n)     = E exp θ B(T (t)) − 12 θ 2 T (t) χ An,t     + exp − 12 θ 2 n E exp [θ B(n)]χ Acn,t .

√ But, for each ω ∈ , T (t)(ω) > n ⇒ B(n) < t/ 2; hence

    exp − 12 θ 2 n E eθ B(n) χ Acn,t  √  < exp − 12 θ 2 n + (tθ / 2) → 0

as

n → ∞.

By the monotone convergence theorem,

√       1 = E exp θ B(T (t)) − 12 θ 2 T (t) = exp (θt/ 2) E exp − 12 θ 2 T (t) . On substituting θ =

√

2u we obtain

  √ E exp [−uT (t)] = exp(−t u), as required. Exercise 2.2.10 Generalise the proof given above to find the characteristic function for the inverse Gaussian subordinator, as defined in Example 1.3.21. If X is an Ft -adapted process and T is a stopping time then we may define a new process X T = (X T (t), t ≥ 0) by the procedure

X T (t) = X (T + t) − X (T ) for each t ≥ 0. The following result is called the strong Markov property for L´evy processes. For the proof, we again follow Protter [255], p. 23, and Bretagnolle [61]. Theorem 2.2.11 (Strong Markov property) If X is a L´evy process and T is a stopping time, then, on (T < ∞): (1) X T is a L´evy process that is independent of FT ; (2) for each t ≥ 0, X T (t) has the same law as X (t); (3) X T has c`adl`ag paths and is FT +t -adapted.

84

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Proof We assume, for simplicity, that T is a bounded stopping time. Let A ∈ FT and for each n ∈ N, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, let u j ∈ Rd , t j ∈ R+ . Recall from Proposition 2.1.3 the martingales given by Mu j (t) = ei(u j ,X (t))−tη(u j ) for each t ≥ 0. Now we have





E χ A exp i



n  



u j , X (T + t j ) − X (T + t j−1 )

j=1

 n n  Mu j (T + t j )  φt −t (u j ) , = E χA Mu j (T + t j−1 ) j=1 j j−1 j=1 

where we use the notation φt (u) = E(ei(u,X (t)) ), for each t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd . Hence by conditioning and Theorem 2.2.1, we find that for each 1 ≤ j ≤ n, 0 < a < b < ∞, we have



Mu j (T + b) E χA Mu j (T + a)



= E χA

1 E(Mu j (T + b)|FT +a ) Mu j (T + a)



= E(χ A ) = P(A). Repeating this argument n times yields





E χ A exp i



n  



u j , X (T + t j ) − X (T + t j−1 )

j=1

= P(A)

n 

φt j −t j−1 (u j )

(2.2)

j=1

Take A = , n = 1, u 1 = u, t1 = t in (2.2) to obtain

E(ei(u,X T (t)) ) = E(ei(u,X (t)) ), from which (2) follows immediately. To verify that X T is a L´evy process, first note that (L1) is immediate. (L2) follows from (2.2) by taking A =  and n arbitrary. The stochastic continuity (L3) of X T follows directly from that of X and the stationary-increment property. We now show that X T and FT are independent. It follows from (2.2) on choosing appropriate u 1 , . . . , u n and t1 , . . . , tn that for all A ∈ FT





    n n   E χ A exp i (u j , X T (t j )) = E exp i (u j , X T (t j )) P(A), j=1

j=1

2.2 Stopping times

so that

85

     n n     E exp i (u j , X T (t j )) FT = E exp i (u j , X T (t j )) ,  j=1 j=1 



and the result follows from (1.1). Part (1) is now fully proved. To verify (3), we need only observe that X T inherits c`adl`ag paths from X . Exercise 2.2.12 Use a localisation argument to extend Theorem 2.2.11 to the case of unbounded stopping times. Before we look at our final application of stopping times, we introduce a very important process associated to a L´evy process X . The jump process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is defined by

X (t) = X (t) − X (t−) for each t ≥ 0 (X (t−) is the left limit at the point t; see Section 2.8.) Theorem 2.2.13 If N is a L´evy process that is increasing (a.s.) and is such that (N (t), t ≥ 0) takes values in {0, 1}, then N is a Poisson process. Proof Define a sequence of stopping times recursively by T0 = 0 and Tn = inf{t > Tn−1 ; (N (t + Tn−1 ) − N (Tn−1 )) = 0} for each n ∈ N. It follows from Theorem 2.2.11 that the sequence (T1 , T2 − T1 , . . . , Tn − Tn−1 , . . .) is i.i.d. By (L2) again, we have for each s, t ≥ 0

  P(T1 > s + t) = P N (s) = 0, N (t + s) − N (s) = 0 = P(T1 > s)P(T1 > t).

From the fact that N is increasing (a.s.), it follows easily that the map t → P(T1 > t) is decreasing and, by (L3), we find that the map t → P(T1 > t) is continuous at t = 0. So the solution to the above functional equation is continuous everywhere, hence there exists λ > 0 such that P(T1 > t) = e−λt for each t ≥ 0 (see e.g. Bingham et al. [46], pp. 4–6). So T1 has an exponential distribution with parameter λ and

P(N (t) = 0) = P(T1 > t) = e−λt for each t ≥ 0. Now assume as an inductive hypothesis that

P(N (t) = n) = e−λt

(λt)n ; n!

86

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

then

P(N (t) = n + 1) = P(Tn+2 > t, Tn+1 ≤ t) = P(Tn+2 > t) − P(Tn+1 > t). But

Tn+1 = T1 + (T2 − T1 ) + · · · + (Tn+1 − Tn ) is the sum of n + 1 i.i.d. exponential random variables and so has a gamma distribution with density

f Tn+1 (s) = e−λs

λn+1 s n n!

for s > 0;

see Exercise 1.2.5. The required result follows on integration.

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures We have already introduced the jump process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) associated with a L´evy process. Clearly X is an adapted process but it is not, in general, a L´evy process, as the following exercise indicates. Exercise 2.3.1 Let N be a Poisson process and choose 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < ∞. Show that

     P N (t2 ) − N (t1 ) = 0N (t1 ) = 1 = P N (t2 ) − N (t1 ) = 0 , so that N cannot have independent increments. The following result demonstrates that X is not a straightforward process to analyse. Lemma 2.3.2 If X is a L´evy process, then, for fixed t > 0, X (t) = 0

(a.s.).

Proof Let (t (n), n ∈ N) be a sequence in R+ with t (n) ↑ t as n → ∞; then, since X has c`adl`ag paths, limn→∞ X (t (n)) = X (t−). However, by (L3) the sequence (X (t (n)), n ∈ N) converges in probability to X (t) and so has a subsequence that converges almost surely to X (t). The result follows by uniqueness of limits. Warning! Do not be tempted to assume that we also have X (T ) = 0 (a.s.) when T is a stopping time.

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures

87

Much of the analytic difficulty in manipulating L´evy processes arises from the fact that it is possible for them to have



|X (s)| = ∞

a.s.

0≤s≤t

and the way these difficulties are overcome exploits the fact that we always have



|X (s)|2 < ∞

a.s.

0≤s≤t

We will gain more insight into these ideas as the discussion progresses. Exercise 2.3.3 Show that Poisson process.

 0≤s≤t

|X (s)| < ∞ (a.s.) if X is a compound

Rather than exploring X itself further, we will find it more profitable to count jumps of specified size. More precisely, let 0 ≤ t < ∞ and A ∈ B(Rd − {0}). Define

N (t, A) = #{0 ≤ s ≤ t; X (s) ∈ A} =



χ A (X (s)).

0≤s≤t

Note that for each ω ∈ , t ≥ 0, the set function A → N (t, A)(ω) is a counting measure on B(Rd − {0}) and hence



E(N (t, A)) =

N (t, A)(ω)d P(ω)

is a Borel measure on B(Rd − {0}). We write µ(·) = E(N (1, ·)) and call it the intensity measure1 associated with X . We say that A ∈ B(Rd −{0}) is bounded ¯ below if 0 ∈ / A. Lemma 2.3.4 If A is bounded below, then N (t, A) < ∞ (a.s.) for all t ≥ 0. Proof Define a sequence of stopping times (TnA , n ∈ N) by T1A = inf{t > A ; X (t) ∈ A}. Since X 0; X (t) ∈ A} and, for n > 1, by TnA = inf{t > Tn−1 A has c`adl`ag paths, we have T1 > 0 (a.s.) and limn→∞ TnA = ∞ (a.s.). Indeed, if either of these were not the case then the set of all jumps in A would have an accumulation point, and this is not possible if X is c`adl`ag (see the proof of Theorem 2.8.1 in Appendix 2.8). Hence, for each t ≥ 0,

N (t, A) =

 n∈N

χ{TnA ≤t} < ∞

a.s.

1 Readers should be aware that many authors use the term ‘intensity measure’ to denote the product of µ with Lebesgue measure on R+ .

88

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Be aware that if A fails to be bounded below then Lemma 2.3.4 may no longer hold, because of the accumulation of infinite numbers of small jumps. Theorem 2.3.5 (1) If A is bounded below, then (N (t, A), t ≥ 0) is a Poisson process with intensity µ(A). (2) If A1 , . . . , Am ∈ B(Rd − {0}) are disjoint, then the random variables N (t, A1 ), . . . , N (t, Am ) are independent. Proof (1) We first need to show that (N (t, A), t ≥ 0) is a L´evy process, as we can then deduce immediately that it is a Poisson process by Theorem 2.2.13. (L1) is obvious. To verify (L2), note first that for 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, n ∈ N, we have N (t, A) − N (s, A) = n if and only if there exists s < t1 < · · · < tn ≤ t such that

X (t j ) ∈ A (1 ≤ j ≤ n).

(2.3)

Furthermore, X (u) ∈ A if and only if there exists a ∈ A for which, given any  > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that

0 < u − w < δ ⇒ |X (w) − X (u) − a| < .

(2.4)

From (2.3) and (2.4), we deduce that (N (t, A) − N (s, A) = n) ∈ σ {X (v) − X (u); s ≤ u < v ≤ t}, and (L2) follows. To establish (L3), note first that if N (t, A) = 0 for some t > 0 then N (s, A) = 0 for all 0 ≤ s < t. Hence, since (L2) holds we find that for all n ∈ N

P(N (t, A) = 0)





2t t , A = 0, N , A = 0, . . . , N (t, A) = 0 =P N n n





t 2t t =P N , A = 0, N ,A −N , A = 0, n n n



n (n − 1)t t . . . , N (t, A) − N . , A =0 = P N ,A =0 n n From this we deduce that



n  t ,A =0 lim sup P(N (t, A) = 0) = lim lim sup P N , n→∞ t→0 n t→0

and, since we can herein replace lim supt→0 by lim inft→0 , we see that either limt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) exists and is 0 or 1 or lim inft→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0 and lim supt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 1.

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures

89

First suppose that lim inft→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0 and that lim supt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 1. Recall that if N (t, A) = 0 for some t > 0 then N (s, A) = 0 for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t. From this we see that the map t → P(N (t, A) = 0) is monotonic decreasing. So if P(N (t, A) = 0) =  > 0 for some t ≥ 0 we must have lim inft→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) ≥ . Hence, if lim inft→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0 then P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0 for all t ≥ 0 and so lim supt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0, which yields our desired contradiction. Now suppose that limt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0; then limt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 1. Let A and B be bounded below and disjoint. Since N (t, A ∪ B) = 0 if and only if N (t, A) = 0 or N (t, B) = 0, we find that limt→0 P(N (t, A ∪ B = 0) = 2, which is also a contradiction. Hence we have deduced that limt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 1 and so limt→0 P(N (t, A) = 0) = 0, as required. (2) Using arguments similar to those that led up to (2.3) and (2.4), we deduce that the events

(N (t, A1 ) = n 1 ), . . . , (N (t, Am ) = n m ) are members of independent σ -algebras. Remark 1 It follows immediately that µ(A) < ∞ whenever A is bounded below, hence the measure µ is σ -finite. Remark 2 By Theorem 2.1.7, N has a c`adl`ag modification that is also a Poisson process. We will identify N with this modification henceforth, in accordance with our usual philosophy.

2.3.1 Random measures Let (S, A) be a measurable space and (, F, P) be a probability space. A random measure M on (S, A) is a collection of random variables (M(B), B ∈ A) such that: (1) M(∅) = 0; (2) (σ -additivity) given any sequence (An , n ∈ N) of mutually disjoint sets in A,

M



n∈N



An

=



M(An )

a.s.;

n∈N

(3) (independently scattered property) for each disjoint family (B1 , . . . , Bn ) in A, the random variables M(B1 ), . . . , M(Bn ) are independent.

90

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

We say that we have a Poisson random measure if each M(B) has a Poisson distribution whenever M(B) < ∞. In many cases of interest, we obtain a σ finite measure λ on (S, A) by the prescription λ(A) = E(M(A)) for all A ∈ A. Conversely we have: Theorem 2.3.6 Given a σ -finite measure λ on a measurable space (S, A), there exists a Poisson random measure M on a probability space (, F, P) such that λ(A) = E(M(A)) for all A ∈ A. Proof See e.g. Ikeda and Watanabe [140], p. 42, or Sato [274], p. 122. Suppose that S = R+ × U, where U is a measurable space equipped with a σ -algebra C, and A = B(R+ ) ⊗ C. Let p = ( p(t), t ≥ 0) be an adapted process taking values in U such that M is a Poisson random measure on S, where M([0, t) × A) = #{0 ≤ s < t; p(s) ∈ A} for each t ≥ 0, A ∈ C. In this case we say that p is a Poisson point process and M is its associated Poisson random measure. The final concept we need is a merger of the two important ideas of the random measure and the martingale. Let U be a topological space and take C to be its Borel σ -algebra. Let M be a random measure on S = R+ ×U . For each A ∈ C, define a process M A = (M A (t), t ≥ 0) by M A (t) = M([0, t) × A). We say that M is a martingale-valued measure if there exists V ∈ C such that M A is a martingale whenever A¯ ∩ V = ∅. We call V the associated forbidden set (which may of course itself be ∅). The key example of these concepts for our work is as follows. Example 2.3.7 Let U = Rd − {0} and C be its Borel σ -algebra. Let X be a L´evy process; then X is a Poisson point process and N is its associated Poisson random measure. For each t ≥ 0 and A bounded below, we define the compensated Poisson random measure by

N˜ (t, A) = N (t, A) − tµ(A). By Exercise 2.1.4(4), ( N˜ (t, A), t ≥ 0) is a martingale and so N˜ extends to a martingale-valued measure with forbidden set {0}. In case you are unfamiliar with Poisson random measures we summarise below the main properties of N . These will be used extensively later. (1) For each t > 0, ω ∈ , N (t, ·)(ω) is a counting measure on B(Rd − {0}). (2) For each A bounded below, (N (t, A), t ≥ 0) is a Poisson process with intensity µ(A) = E(N (1, A)).

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures

91

(3) ( N˜ (t, A), t ≥ 0) is a martingale-valued measure, where N˜ (t, A) = N (t, A) − tµ(A), for A bounded below. 2.3.2 Poisson integration Let f be a Borel measurable function from Rd to Rd and let A be bounded below; then for each t > 0, ω ∈ , we may define the Poisson integral of f as a random finite sum by





f (x)N (t, d x)(ω) = A

f (x)N (t, {x})(ω).

x∈A

 Note that each A f (x)N (t, d x) is an Rd -valued random variable and gives rise to a c`adl`ag stochastic process as we vary t. Now, since N (t, {x}) = 0 ⇔ X (u) = x for at least one 0 ≤ u ≤ t, we have



f (x)N (t, d x) = A



f (X (u))χ A (X (u)).

(2.5)

0≤u≤t

Let (TnA , n ∈ N) be the arrival times for the Poisson process (N (t, A), t ≥ 0). Then another useful representation for Poisson integrals, which follows immediately from (2.5), is



f (x)N (t, d x) = A



f ((X (TnA )))χ[0,t] (TnA ).

(2.6)

n∈N

Henceforth, we will sometimes use µ A to denote the restriction to A of the measure µ. Theorem 2.3.8 Let A be bounded below. Then:  (1) for each t ≥ 0, A f (x)N (t, d x) has a compound Poisson distribution such that, for each u ∈ Rd ,



 



   i(u,x) E exp i u, f (x)N (t, d x) = exp t (e − 1)µ f (d x) A

A

where µ f = µ ◦ f −1 ; (2) if f ∈ L 1 (A, µ A ), we have



 f (x)N (t, d x) = t f (x)µ(d x);

E A

A

92

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

(3) if f ∈ L 2 (A, µ A ), we have



      Var  f (x)N (t, d x) = t | f (x)|2 µ(d x). A

A

Proof (1) For simplicity, we will prove this result in the case f ∈ L 1 (A, µ A ). The general proof for arbitrary measurable f can be found in Sato [274],  p. 124. First let f be a simple function and write f = nj=1 c j χ A j , where each c j ∈ Rd . We can assume, without loss of generality, that the A j are disjoint Borel subsets of A. By Theorem 2.3.5 we find that

 



E exp i u, f (x)N (t, d x) A

 



n = E exp i u, c j N (t, A j ) j=1

=

n 

   E exp i(u, c j N (t, A j ))

j=1

=

n 

     exp t exp i(u, c j ) − 1 µ(A j )

j=1

       exp i(u, f (x)) − 1 µ(d x) . = exp t A

L 1 (A, µ

Given an arbitrary f ∈ A ), we can find a sequence of simple functions converging to f in L 1 and hence a subsequence that converges to f almost surely. Passing to the limit along this subsequence in the above yields the required result, via dominated convergence. Parts (2) and (3) follow from (1) by differentiation. It follows from Theorem 2.3.8(2) that a Poisson integral will fail to have a finite mean if f ∈ / L 1 (A, µ). Exercise 2.3.9 Show that if f : Rd → Rd is Borel measurable then



| f (X (u))|χ A (X (u)) < ∞

a.s.

0≤u≤t

Consider the sequence of jump size random variables (Y fA (n), n ∈ N), where each



Y fA (n)

=

f (x)N A



TnA , d x





− A

 A  f (x)N Tn−1 , dx .

(2.7)

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures

93

It follows from (2.6) and (2.7) that

Y fA (n) = f ((X (TnA ))) for each n ∈ N. Theorem 2.3.10 (1) (Y fA (n), n ∈ N) are i.i.d. with common law given by

P(Y fA (n) ∈ B) =

µ(A ∩ f −1 (B)) µ(A)

(2.8)

for each B ∈ B(Rd ).   (2) A f (x)N (t, d x), t ≥ 0 is a compound Poisson process. Proof (1) We begin by establishing (2.8). Using Theorem 2.3.8(2) and (2.7), A , n ∈ N) are i.i.d. exponentially distogether with the fact that (TnA − Tn−1 tributed random variables with common mean 1/µ(A), we obtain

  P(Y fA (n) ∈ B) = E(χ B (Y fA (n)) = E ETnA −T A (χ B (Y fA (n))) n−1  ∞  = s χ B ( f (x))µ(d x) pTnA −T A (ds) 0

n−1

A

−1

µ(A ∩ f (B)) , µ(A)

=

as required. Hence our random variables are identically distributed. To see that they are independent, we use a similar argument to that above to write, for any finite set of natural numbers {i 1 , i 2 , . . . , i m } and Bi1 , Bi2 , . . . , Bim ∈ B(Rd ),

  P Y fA (i 1 ) ∈ Bi1 , Y fA (i 2 ) ∈ Bi2 , . . . , Y fA (i m ) ∈ Bim   m   A  χ Bi j Y f (i j ) = E ET A ,T A −T A ,...,TnA −T A  =

∞

1

2



∞

0

0

1

n−1

j=1



∞

···

si1 si2 · · · sim

0

m   j=1

A

χ Bi j ( f (x))µ(d x)

× pTi A (dsi1 ) pTi A −Ti A (dsi2 ) · · · pTi A −Ti A (dsim ) 1

2

1

m

m−1

= P(Y fA (i 1 ) ∈ Bi1 )P(Y fA (i 2 ) ∈ Bi2 ) · · · P(Y fA (i m ) ∈ Bim ), by (2.8).

94

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

(2) First we observe that (Y fA (n), n ∈ N) and the Poisson process (N (t, A), t ≥ 0) are independent. Indeed, this follows from a slight extension of the following argument. For each m ∈ N, n ∈ N ∪ {0}, t ≥ 0, B ∈ B(Rd ), we have

      A P Y fA (m) ∈ B  N (t, A) = n = P Y fA (m) ∈ B TnA ≤ t, Tn+1 >t = P(Y fA (m) ∈ B), by a calculation similar to that in (1). For each t ≥ 0, we have



A

f (x)N (t, d x) = Y fA (1) + Y fA (2) + · · · + Y fA (N (t, A)).

The summands are i.i.d. by (1), and the result follows. For each f ∈ L 1 (A, µ A ), t ≥ 0, we define the compensated Poisson integral by



f (x) N˜ (t, d x) = A





f (x)N (t, d x) − t A

f (x)µ(d x). A

A straightforward argument, as in Exercise 2.1.4(4), shows that



f (x) N˜ (t, d x), t ≥ 0

A

is a martingale, and we will use this fact extensively later. By Theorem 2.3.8(1), (3) we can easily deduce the following two important facts:



 



˜ E exp i u, f (x) N (t, d x)

 A   i(u,x)  e = exp t − 1 − i(u, x) µ f (d x)

(2.9)

A

for each u ∈ Rd and, for f ∈ L 2 (A, µ A ),

 2       ˜ E  f (x) N (t, d x) = t | f (x)|2 µ(d x). A

(2.10)

A

Exercise 2.3.11 For A, B bounded below and f ∈ L 2 (A, µ A ), g ∈ L 2 (B, µ B ), show that



f (x) N˜ (t, d x), A

  g(x) N˜ (t, d x) = t

 B

f (x)g(x)µ(d x). A∩B

2.3 The jumps of a L´evy process – Poisson random measures

95

Exercise 2.3.12 For each A bounded below define



 2 ˜ f (x) N (t, d x), f ∈ L (A, µ A ) .

MA = A

Show that M A is a closed subspace of the martingale space M. Exercise 2.3.13 Deduce that limn→∞ TnA = ∞ (a.s.) whenever A is bounded below. 2.3.3 Processes of finite variation We begin by introducing a useful class of functions. Let P = {a = t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < tn+1 = b} be a partition of the interval [a, b] in R, and define its mesh to be δ = max1≤i≤n |ti+1 − ti |. We define the variation var P (g) of a c`adl`ag mapping g : [a, b] → Rd over the partition P by the prescription

var P (g) =

n 

|g(ti+1 ) − g(ti )|.

i=1

If V (g) = supP var P (g) < ∞, we say that g has finite variation on [a, b]. If g is defined on the whole of R (or R+ ), it is said to have finite variation if it has finite variation on each compact interval. It is a trivial observation that every non-decreasing g is of finite variation. Conversely, if g is of finite variation then it can always be written as the difference of two non-decreasing functions; to see this, just write

g=

V (g) + g V (g) − g − , 2 2

where V (g)(t) is the variation of g on [a, t]. Functions of finite variation are important in integration: suppose that we are given a function g that we are proposing as an integrator, then as a minimum we will want to be able to define  the Stieltjes integral I f dg for all continuous functions f , where I is some finite interval. It is shown on pp. 40–41 of Protter [255] that a necessary and sufficient condition for obtaining such an integral as a limit of Riemann sums is that g has finite variation (see also the discussion and references in Mikosch [228], pp. 88–92). Exercise 2.3.14 Show that all the functions of finite variation on [a, b] (or on R) form a vector space. A stochastic process (X (t), t ≥ 0) is of finite variation if the paths (X (t)(ω), t ≥ 0) are of finite variation for almost all ω ∈ . The following is an important example for us.

96

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Example 2.3.15 (Poisson integrals) Let N be a Poisson random measure, with intensity measure µ, that counts the jumps of a L´evy process X and let f : Rd → Rd be Borel measurable. For A bounded below, let Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0)  be given by Y (t) = A f (x)N (t, d x); then Y is of finite variation on [0, t] for each t ≥ 0. To see this, we observe that, for all partitions P of [0, t], by Exercise 2.3.9 we have

var P (Y ) ≤



| f (X (s))|χ A (X (s)) < ∞

a.s.

(2.11)

0≤s≤t

Exercise 2.3.16 Let Y be a Poisson integral as above and let η be its L´evy symbol. For each u ∈ Rd consider the martingales Mu = (Mu (t), t ≥ 0) where each

Mu (t) = ei(u,Y (t))−tη(u) . Show that Mu is of finite variation. (Hint: Use the mean value theorem.) Exercise 2.3.17 Show that every subordinator is of finite variation. In fact, a necessary and sufficient condition for a L´evy process to be of finite variation is that there is no Brownian part (i.e. A = 0 in the L´evy– Khinchine formula) and that |x| 0 and choose δ = (δn , n ∈ N) to be such that

 max |M1 (tn ) − M1 (tn − δn ) − M1 (tn )|,

 |M2 (tn ) − M2 (tn − δn ) − M2 (tn )|
0 with

sup |X (t)| < C. 0≤t 0 be as above and define a sequence of stopping times (Tn , n ∈ N) by T1 = inf{t ≥ 0, |X (t)| > C} and, for n > 1, Tn = inf{t > Tn−1 , |X (t) − X (Tn−1 )| > C}. We note that |X (Tn )| ≤ C and that Tn+1 − Tn = inf{t ≥ 0; |X (t + Tn ) − X (Tn )| > C}, for all n ∈ N. Our first goal will be to establish that, for all n ∈ N,

sup |X (s ∧ Tn )| ≤ 2nC

(2.12)

0≤s 1. We fix ω ∈  and consider the left-hand side of (2.12) when n is replaced by n + 1. Now the supremum of |X (s ∧ Tn+1 )| is attained over the interval [0, Tn (ω)) or over the interval [Tn (ω), Tn+1 (ω)]. In the former case we are done, and in

102

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

the latter case we have

sup |X (s ∧ Tn+1 )(ω)| 0≤s 0, consider the compound Poisson process



|x|≥a

x N (t, d x), t ≥ 0

and define a new stochastic process Ya = (Ya (t), t ≥ 0) by the prescription



Ya (t) = X (t) −

|x|≥a

x N (t, d x).

2.4 The L´evy–Itˆo decomposition

103

Intuitively, Ya is what remains of the L´evy process X when all the jumps of size greater than a have been removed. We can get more insight into its paths by considering the impact of removing each jump. Let (Tn , n ∈ N) be the arrival times for the Poisson process (N (t, Ba (0)c ), t ≥ 0). Then we have

 X (t)    X (T1 −) Ya (t) =  X (t) − X (T1 ) + X (T1 −)   Ya (T2 −)

for for for for

0 ≤ t < T1 , t = T1 , T1 < t < T2 , t = T2 ,

and so on recursively. Theorem 2.4.8 Ya is a L´evy process. Proof (L1) is immediate. For (L2) we argue as in the proof of Theorem 2.3.5 and deduce that, for each 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, Ya (t) − Ya (s) is Fs,t -measurable where Fs,t = σ {X (u) − X (v); s ≤ v ≤ u < t}. To establish (L3), use the fact that for each b > 0, t ≥ 0,







b P |Ya (t)| > b ≤ P |X (t)| > 2



  + P 



 b . x N (t, d x) > 2 |x|≥a

We then immediately deduce the following: Corollary 2.4.9 A L´evy process has bounded jumps if and only if it is of the form Ya for some a > 0. The proof is left as a (straightforward) exercise for the reader. For each a > 0, we define a L´evy process Yˆa = (Yˆa (t), t ≥ 0) by

Yˆa = Ya (t) − E(Ya (t)). It is then easy to verify that Yˆa is a c`adl`ag centred L 2 -martingale. Exercise 2.4.10 Show that E(Ya (t)) = t E(Ya (1)) for each t ≥ 0. In the following, we will find it convenient to take a = 1 and write the processes Y1 , Yˆ1 simply as Y, Yˆ , respectively. So Y is what remains of our L´evy process when all jumps whose magnitude is larger than 1 have been removed, ˆ and  Y is the centred version of Y . We also introduce the notation M(t, A) = ˜ (t, d x) for t ≥ 0 and A bounded below. x N A The following is a key step towards our required result.

104

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

Theorem 2.4.11 For each t ≥ 0,

Yˆ (t) = Yc (t) + Yd (t), where Yc and Yd are independent L´evy processes, Yc has continuous sample paths and



Yd (t) =

|x| b) = 0 for

2.4 The L´evy–Itˆo decomposition

105

all n ∈ N. A similar argument shows that Yc is a L´evy process in martingale space, where

  Yc (t) = L 2 − lim Yˆ (t) − M(t, An ) . n→∞

The fact that Yc and Yd are independent follows by a straightforward limiting argument applied to characteristic functions. Now we need to show that Yc has continuous sample paths. If Yc (t) = 0 (a.s.) for all t ≥ 0 we are finished, so suppose that this is not the case. We seek a proof by contradiction. Let N ⊆  be the set on which the paths of Yc fail to be continuous. If P(N ) = 0, we can replace Yc by a modification that has continuous sample paths, so we will assume that P(N ) > 0. Then there exists some b > 0 and a stopping time T such that P(|X (T )| > b) > 0. Let A = {x ∈ Rd ; |x| > b}; then by Proposition 2.4.1 we have for each t ≥ 0, f ∈ L 2 (A, µ A ),



0 = E



Yc (t),

= lim E n→∞

|x|>b

f (x) N˜ (t, d x)

Yˆ (t) − M(t, An ),





 |x|>b

f (x) N˜ (t, d x)

= 0,

and we have obtained our desired contradiction. We recall that µ is the intensity measure of the Poisson random measure N . Corollary 2.4.12 µ is a L´evy measure. Proof We have already shown that µ((−1, 1)c ) < ∞ (see Remark 1 after Theorem 2.3.5). We also have





|x| µ(d x) = lim

|x|2 µ(d x) = lim E(|M(t, An |)2 )

2

|x|≤1

n→∞

n→∞

An

= E(|Yd |2 ) < ∞, and the result is established. Corollary 2.4.13 For each t ≥ 0, u ∈ Rd ,

E(e

i(u,Yd (t))

 ) = exp t



e

|x| 0 for all x > 0 or P(X (Tx ) = x) = 0 for all x > 0. In the first case, every positive point can be hit continuously in X and this phenomena is called creep in Bertoin [36], pp. 174–5. In the second case, only jumps can occur (almost surely). Millar [230] classified completely the conditions for creep or jump for general one-dimensional L´evy processes, in terms of their  0 characteristics. For  1 example, a sufficient condition for creep is A = 0 and −1 |x|ν(d x) = ∞, 0 xν(d x) < ∞. This is satisfied by ‘spectrally negative’ α-stable L´evy processes (0 < α < 2), i.e. those for which c1 = 0 in Theorem 1.2.20(2).

2.5 The interlacing construction In this section we are going to use the interlacing technique to gain greater insight into the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition. First we need some preliminaries.

112

Martingales, stopping times and random measures

2.5.1 Limit events – a review Let (A(n), n ∈ N) be a sequence of events in F. We define the tail events ∞ ∞  

lim inf A(n) = n→∞

A(k)

lim sup A(n) =

and

n→∞

n=1 k=n

Elementary manipulations yield

)

c



= 1 − P lim sup A(n) .

P lim inf A(n) n→∞

A(k).

n=1 k=n



*

∞ ∞  

n→∞

(2.27)

The following is a straightforward consequence of the continuity of probability:

) * P lim inf A(n) ≤ lim inf P(A(n)) ≤ lim sup P(A(n)) n→∞ n→∞ n→∞

≤ P lim sup A(n) . (2.28) n→∞

For a proof see e.g. Rosenthal [264], p. 26. We will need Borel’s lemma (sometimes called the first Borel–Cantelli lemma), which is proved in many textbooks on elementary probability. The proof is simple, but we include it here for completeness. Lemma 2.5.1 (Borel’s lemma) If (A(n), n ∈ N) is a sequence of events for  which ∞ n=1 P(A(n)) < ∞, then P(lim supn→∞ A(n)) = 0. Proof Given any  > 0 we can find n 0 ∈ N such that m > n 0 ⇒ ∞ n=m P(A(n)) < , hence we find







P lim sup A(n) ≤ P n→∞

∞ 



A(n) ≤

n=m

∞ 

P(A(n)) < ,

n=m

and the result follows. For the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, which we will not use in this book, see e.g. Rosenthal [264], p. 26, or Grimmett and Stirzaker [123], p. 288. 2.5.2 Interlacing Let Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) be a L´evy process with jumps bounded by 1, so that we have the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition



Y (t) = bt + B A (t) +

|x| 0 we have

||Tt+h ψ − Tt ψ|| = ||Tt (Th − I )ψ||

by (1) and (2)

≤ ||Tt || ||(Th − I )ψ|| ≤ ||(Th − I )ψ||

by (3).

A similar argument holds when h < 0, and the result follows. Note Semigroups satisfying just the conditions (1), (2) and (4) given above are studied in the literature, and these are sometimes called C0 -semigroups. Although they are no longer necessarily contractions, it can be shown that there exist M > 0 and β ∈ R such that ||Tt || ≤ Meβt for all t ≥ 0. Although all the theory given below extends naturally to encompass this more general class, we will be content to study the more restrictive case as this is sufficient for our needs. Indeed, the reader should quickly confirm that every Feller semigroup is a (contraction) semigroup on C0 (Rd ) in the above sense. Example 3.2.2 Let B = C0 (R) and consider the semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) defined by (Tt f )(x) = f (x + t) for each f ∈ C0 (R), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0. This is called the translation semigroup. Now if f ∈ C0∞ (R) is real-analytic, so that it can be represented by a Taylor series, we have ∞ n  t (Tt f )(x) = (D n f )(x) = ‘et D f ’, n! n=0

where D f (x) = f (x) defines the operator of differentiation. Exercise 3.2.3 Check the semigroup conditions (1) to (4) for the translation semigroup. Exercise 3.2.4 Let A be a bounded operator in a Banach space B and for each t ≥ 0, ψ ∈ B, define

Tt ψ =

∞ n  t n A ψ = ‘et A ψ’. n! n=0

Show that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a strongly continuous semigroup of bounded operators in B, that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is norm-continuous, in that limt↓0 ||Tt − I || = 0. These examples have a valuable moral. Given a semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0), we should try to find a linear operator A for which Tt = et A can be given meaning. In general, just as D is an unbounded operator that does not operate on the whole of C0 (Rd ) so we would expect A to be unbounded in general.

3.2 Semigroups and their generators

131

Now let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be an arbitrary semigroup in a Banach space B. We define

    Tt ψ − ψ  D A = ψ ∈ B; ∃φψ ∈ B such that lim  − φψ  = 0 . t↓0 t

It is easy to verify that D A is a linear space and thus we may define a linear operator A in B, with domain D A , by the prescription

Aψ = φψ , so that, for each ψ ∈ D A ,

Aψ = lim t↓0

Tt ψ − ψ . t

We call A the infinitesimal generator, or sometimes just the generator, of the semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0). In the case where (Tt , t ≥ 0) is the Feller semigroup associated with a Feller process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0), we sometimes call A the generator of X . In the following, we will utilise the Bochner integral of measurable mapt pings f : R+ → B, which we write in the usual way as 0 f (s)ds. This is defined, in a similar way to the Lebesgue integral, as a limit of integrals of simple B-valued functions, and we will take for granted that standard results such as dominated convergence can be extended to this context. A nice introduction to this topic can be found in Appendix E of Cohn [73], pp. 350–7. For an alternative approach based on the Riemann integral, see Ethier and Kurtz [99], pp. 8–9. Let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be a semigroup in B and let ψ ∈ B. Consider the family of vectors (ψ(t), t ≥ 0), where each ψ(t) is defined as a Bochner integral



t

ψ(t) =

Tu ψ du. 0

For s > 0, we will frequently apply the continuity of Ts together with the semigroup condition (1) to write



Ts ψ(t) =

t

Ts+u ψ du.

(3.7)

0

Readers who are worried about moving Ts through the integral should read Cohn [73], p. 352. The following technical lemma plays a key role later.

132

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Lemma 3.2.5 ψ(t) ∈ D A for each t ≥ 0, ψ ∈ B and

Aψ(t) = Tt ψ − ψ. Proof Using (3.7), the fundamental theorem of calculus, the fact that T0 = I and a standard change of variable, we find for each t ≥ 0,

  t 1 1 lim Th ψ(t) − ψ(t) = lim Th+u ψ du − h↓0 h h↓0 h 0   t+h 1 = lim Tu ψ du − h↓0 h h   t+h 1 Tu ψ du − = lim h↓0 h t

1 h 1 h 1 h





t

Tu ψ du 

0



t

Tu ψ du 

0



h

Tu ψ du 0

= Tt ψ − ψ, and the required result follows. Theorem 3.2.6 (1) D A is dense in B. (2) Tt D A ⊆ D A for each t ≥ 0. (3) Tt Aψ = ATt ψ for each t ≥ 0, ψ ∈ D A . Proof (1) By Lemma 3.2.5, ψ(t) ∈ D A for each t ≥ 0, ψ ∈ B, but, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, limt↓0 (ψ(t)/t) = ψ; hence D A is dense in B as required. For (2) and (3), suppose that ψ ∈ D A and t ≥ 0; then, by the definition of A and the continuity of Tt , we have

 1 1 ATt ψ = lim (Th − I ) Tt ψ = lim (Tt+h − Tt )ψ h↓0 h h↓0 h

 1 = Tt lim (Th − I ) ψ = Tt Aψ. h↓0 h

The strong derivative in B of the mapping t → Tt ψ, where ψ ∈ D A , is given by

d Tt+h ψ − Th ψ Tt ψ = lim . h↓0 dt h

3.2 Semigroups and their generators

133

From the proof of Theorem 3.2.6, we deduce that

d Tt ψ = ATt ψ. dt

(3.8)

More generally, it can be shown that t → Tt ψ is the unique solution of the following initial-value problem in Banach space:

d u(t) = Au(t), dt

u(0) = ψ;

see e.g. Davies [76], p. 5. This justifies the notation Tt = et A . Theorem 3.2.7 A is closed. Proof Let (ψn , n ∈ N) ∈ D A be such that limn→∞ ψn = ψ ∈ B and limn→∞ Aψn = φ ∈ B. We must prove that ψ ∈ D A and φ = Aψ. First observe that, for each t ≥ 0, by continuity, equation (3.8) and Theorem 3.2.6(3),



t

Tt ψ − ψ = lim (Tt ψn − ψn ) = lim n→∞



n→∞

Ts Aψn ds 0

t

Ts φ ds

=

(3.9)

0

where the passage to the limit in the last line is justified by the fact that

 t   t  t   lim  Ts Aψn ds − Ts φ ds  ≤ lim ||Ts (Aψn − φ)||ds n→∞ n→∞ 0

0

0

≤ t lim ||(Aψn − φ)|| = 0. n→∞

Now, by the fundamental theorem of calculus applied to (3.9), we have

1 lim (Tt ψ − ψ) = φ, t↓0 t from which the required result follows. The next result is extremely useful in applications. Theorem 3.2.8 If D ⊆ D A is such that (1) D is dense in B, (2) Tt (D) ⊆ D for all t ≥ 0, then D is a core for A.

134

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Proof Let D be the closure of D in D A with respect to the graph norm |||.||| (where we recall that |||ψ||| = ||ψ|| + ||Aψ|| for each ψ ∈ D A ). Let ψ ∈ D A ; then by hypothesis (1), we know there exist (ψn , n ∈ N) in D

t such that limn→∞ ψtn = ψ. Now define the Bochner integrals ψ(t) = 0 Ts ψ ds and ψn (t) = 0 Ts ψn ds for each n ∈ N and t ≥ 0. By hypothesis (2) and Lemma 3.2.5, we deduce that each ψn (t) ∈ D A . Using Lemma 3.2.5 again and the fact that Tt is a contraction, we obtain for each t ≥ 0

lim |||ψ(t) − ψn (t)|||

n→∞

= lim ||ψ(t) − ψn (t)|| + lim ||Aψ(t) − Aψn (t)|| n→∞ n→∞  t ≤ lim ||Ts (ψ − ψn )||ds + lim ||(Tt ψ − ψ) − (Tt ψn − ψn )|| n→∞

n→∞

0

≤ (t + 2) lim ||ψ − ψn || = 0, n→∞

and so ψ(t) ∈ D for each t ≥ 0. Furthermore, by Lemma 3.2.5 and the fundamental theorem of calculus, we find

    1 lim  ψ(t) − ψ  t↓0 t     t     1  1       Ts ψ ds − ψ  + lim  Aψ(t) − Aψ  = lim  t↓0 t↓0 t 0 t     t     1  1       = lim  Ts ψ ds − ψ  + lim  (Tt ψ − ψ) − Aψ  = 0. t↓0 t↓0 t 0 t

From this we can easily deduce that G A ⊆ D, from which it is clear that D is a core for A, as required. We now turn our attention to the resolvent Rλ (A) = (λ − A)−1 , which is defined for all λ in the resolvent set ρ(A). Of course, there is no a priori reason why ρ(A) should be non-empty. Fortunately we have the following: Theorem 3.2.9 If A is the generator of a semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0), then (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(A) and, for each λ > 0,



Rλ (A) =

∞

e−λt Tt dt.

(3.10)

0

Proof For each λ > 0, we define a linear operator Sλ (A) by the Laplace transform on the right-hand side of (3.10). Our goal is to prove that this really is the resolvent. Note first of all that Sλ (A) is a bounded operator on B; indeed,

3.2 Semigroups and their generators

135

for each ψ ∈ B, t ≥ 0, on using the contraction property of Tt we find that



||Sλ (A)ψ|| ≤

∞

e

−λt



||Tt ψ||dt ≤ ||ψ||

0

∞

e−λt dt =

0

1 ||ψ||. λ

Hence we have ||Sλ (A)|| ≤ 1/λ. Now define ψλ = Sλ (A)ψ for each ψ ∈ B. Then by continuity, change of variable and the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have

1 lim (Th ψλ − ψλ ) h↓0 h   ∞   1 1 ∞ −λt −λt e Tt+h ψdt − e Tt ψ dt = lim h↓0 h 0 h 0   ∞   1 1 ∞ −λt −λ(t−h) e Tt ψdt − e Tt ψ dt = lim h↓0 h h h 0  h  ∞ 1 λh λh 1 −λt = − lim e e Tt ψdt + lim (e − 1) e−λt Tt ψdt h↓0 h↓0 h h 0 0 = −ψ + λSλ (A)ψ. Hence ψλ ∈ D A and Aψλ = −ψ + λSλ (A)ψ, i.e. for all ψ ∈ B

(λ − A)Sλ (A)ψ = ψ. So λ − A is surjective for all λ > 0 and its right inverse is Sλ (A). Our proof is complete if we can show that λ− A is also injective. To establish this, assume that there exists ψ = 0 such that (λ − A)ψ = 0 and define ψt = eλt ψ for each t ≥ 0. Then differentiation yields the initial-value problem

ψt = λeλt ψ = Aψt with initial condition ψ0 = ψ. But, by the remarks following equation (3.8), we see that ψt = Tt ψ for all t ≥ 0. We then have

||Tt ψ|| = ||ψt || = |eλt | ||ψ||, and so ||Tt || ≥ ||Tt ψ||/||ψ|| = |eλt | > 1, since λ > 0. But we know that each Tt is a contraction, and so we have a contradiction. Hence we must have ψ = 0 and the proof is complete. The final question that we will consider in this section leads to a converse to the last theorem. Suppose that A is a given densely defined closed linear operator in a Banach space B. Under what conditions is it the generator of a semigroup? The answer to this is given by the celebrated Hille–Yosida theorem.

136

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Theorem 3.2.10 (Hille–Yosida) Let A be a densely defined closed linear operator in a Banach space B and let Rλ (A) = (λ − A)−1 be its resolvent for λ ∈ ρ(A) ⊆ C. A is the generator of a one-parameter contraction semigroup in B if and only if (1) (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(A), (2) ||Rλ (A)|| ≤ 1/λ for all λ > 0. Proof Necessity has already been established in the proof of Theorem 3.2.9. We will not prove sufficiency here but direct the reader to standard texts such as Davies [76], Ma and R¨ockner [204] and Jacob [149]. The Hille–Yosida theorem can be generalised to give necessary and sufficient conditions for the closure of a closable operator to generate a semigroup. This result can be found in e.g. Section 4.1 of Jacob [149] or Chapter 1 of Ethier and Kurtz [99].

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes Here we will investigate the application to L´evy processes of some of the analytical concepts introduced in the last section. To this end, we introduce a L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) that is adapted to a given filtration (Ft , t ≥ 0) in a probability space (
, F, P). The mapping η is the L´evy symbol of X , so that

E(ei(u,X (t)) ) = etη(u) for all u ∈ Rd . From Theorem 1.2.17 we know that η is a continuous, hermitian, conditionally positive mapping from Rd to C that satisfies η(0) = 0 and whose precise form is given by the L´evy–Khintchine formula. For each t ≥ 0, qt will denote the law of X (t). We have already seen in Theorem 3.1.9 that X is a Feller process and if (Tt , t ≥ 0) is the associated Feller semigroup then



(Tt f )(x) =

Rd

f (x + y)qt (dy)

for each f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0, i.e.

(Tt f )(x) = E( f (X (t) + x)).

(3.11)

3.3.1 Translation-invariant semigroups Let (τa , a ∈ f (x − a) for each a, x ∈ Rd , f ∈ Bb (Rd ).

Rd ) be the translation group acting in

Bb (Rd ), so that (τa f )(x) =

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

137

We then find that



 (Tt (τa f ))(x) = E (τa f )(X (t) + x) = E f (X (t) + x − a) = (Tt f )(x − a) = (τa (Tt f ))(x),

i.e.

Tt τa = τa Tt for each t ≥ 0, a ∈ Rd . The semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) is then said to be translation invariant. This property gives us another way of characterising L´evy processes within the class of Markov processes. In the following result, we will take (
, F, P) to be the canonical triple given by the Kolmogorov existence theorem, as used in Theorem 3.1.7. Theorem 3.3.1 If (Tt , t ≥ 0) is the semigroup associated with a canonical Feller process X for which X (0) = 0 (a.s.), then this semigroup is translation invariant if and only if X is a L´evy process. Proof We have already seen that the semigroup associated with a L´evy process is translation invariant. Conversely, let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be a translationinvariant Feller semigroup associated with a Feller process X with transition probabilities ( pt , t ≥ 0). Then for each a, x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0, f ∈ C0 (Rd ), by (3.3) we have



(τa (Tt f ))(x) = Moreover,

Rd

f (y) pt (x − a, dy).



(Tt (τa f ))(x) =  =

 Rd

Rd

(τa f )(y) pt (x, dy) =

f (y − a) pt (x, dy)

f (y) pt (x, dy + a).

So, by translation invariance, we have



Rd

Rd

f (y) pt (x − a, dy) =

 Rd

f (y) pt (x, dy + a).

Now we may apply the Riesz representation theorem for continuous linear functionals on C0 (Rd ) (see e.g. Cohn [73], pp. 209–10) to deduce that

pt (x − a, B) = pt (x, B + a)

(3.12)

for all t ≥ 0, a, x ∈ Rd , B ∈ B(Rd ). Let qt be the law of X (t) for each t ≥ 0, so that qt (B) = pt (0, B) for each B ∈ B(Rd ); then, by (3.12), we have pt (x, B) = qt (B − x) for each

138

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

x ∈ Rd . Now apply the Chapman–Kolmogorov equations to deduce that, for all s, t ≥ 0,



qt+s (B) = pt+s (0, B) =



pt (y, B) ps (0, dy) = Rd

qt (B − y)qs (dy), Rd

so (qt , t ≥ 0) is a convolution semigroup of probability measures. It is vaguely continuous, since (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a Feller semigroup and so

lim f (y)qt (dy) = lim(Tt f )(0) = f (0) t↓0

t↓0

for all f ∈ C0 (Rd ). Hence by Theorem 1.4.5 and the note at the end of Subsection 1.4.1, we deduce that the co-ordinate process on (
, F, P) is a L´evy process. Exercise 3.3.2 Let X be a L´evy process with infinitesimal generator A. Deduce that, for all a ∈ Rd , τa (D A ) ⊆ D A and that for all f ∈ D A

τa A f = Aτa f. 3.3.2 Representation of semigroups and generators by pseudo-differential operators We now turn our attention to the infinitesimal generators of L´evy processes.1 Here we will require a very superficial knowledge of pseudo-differential operators acting in the Schwartz space S(Rd ) of rapidly decreasing functions. Those requiring some background in this may consult the final part of Section 3.8. There is also no harm (apart from a slight reduction in generality) in replacing S(Rd ) by Cc∞ (Rd ) in what follows. Let f ∈ S(Rd ). We recall that its Fourier transform is fˆ ∈ S(Rd , C), where

fˆ(u) = (2π )

−d/2



Rd

e−i(u,x) f (x)d x

for all u ∈ Rd , and the Fourier inversion formula yields

f (x) = (2π )

−d/2



Rd

fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du

for each x ∈ Rd . A number of useful results about the Fourier transform are collected in the appendix at the end of this chapter. The next theorem is of great importance in the analytic study of L´evy processes and of their generalisations. 1 In order to continue denoting the infinitesimal generator as A, we will henceforth use a to denote

the positive definite symmetric matrix appearing in the L´evy–Khinchine formula.

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

139

Theorem 3.3.3 Let X be a L´evy process with L´evy symbol η and characteristics (b, a, ν). Let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be the associated Feller semigroup and A be its infinitesimal generator. (1) For each t ≥ 0, f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,

(Tt f )(x) = (2π )−d/2

 Rd

ei(u,x) etη(u) fˆ(u)du,

so that Tt is a pseudo-differential operator with symbol etη . (2) For each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , −d/2

(A f )(x) = (2π )

 Rd

ei(u,x) η(u) fˆ(u)du,

so that A is a pseudo-differential operator with symbol η. (3) For each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,

(A f )(x) = bi ∂i f (x) + 12 a i j ∂i ∂ j f (x)  + [ f (x + y) − f (x) − y i ∂i f (x)χ Bˆ (y)]ν(dy). Rd −{0}

(3.13) Proof (1) We apply Fourier inversion within (3.11) to find for all t ≥ 0, f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,


 (Tt f )(x) = E f (X (t) + x) = (2π )−d/2 E



Rd

 ei(u,x+X (t)) fˆ(u)du .

Since fˆ ∈ S(Rd ) ⊂ L 1 (Rd ), we have

   

Rd

e

i(u,x)

E(e

i(u,X (t))

     i(u,x) e ) fˆ(u)du  ≤ E(ei(u,X (t)) )| fˆ(u)|du Rd  ≤ | fˆ(u)|du < ∞, Rd

so we can apply Fubini’s theorem to obtain −d/2



(Tt f )(x) = (2π )

−d/2

= (2π )



Rd

Rd

ei(u,x) E(ei(u,X (t)) ) fˆ(u)du ei(u,x) etη(u) fˆ(u)du.

140

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

(2) For each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , we have by result (1),

1 (A f )(x) = lim [(Tt f )(x) − f (x)] t↓0 t  etη(u) − 1 ˆ −d/2 = (2π ) lim ei(u,x) f (u)du. t↓0 R d t Now, by the mean value theorem and Exercise 1.2.16, there exists K > 0 such that



R

    i(u,x) etη(u) − 1  e ˆ(u) du ≤ f   d t

Rd

≤K

|η(u) fˆ(u)|du

 Rd

(1 + |u|2 |)| fˆ(u)|du < ∞,

since (1 + |u|2 ) fˆ(u) ∈ S(Rd , C). We can now use dominated convergence to deduce the required result. (3) Applying the L´evy–Khinchine formula to result (2), we obtain for each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , −d/2

(A f )(x) = (2π )  +

Rd −{0}



Rd



e

e

i(x,u)

i(u,y)

 i(b, u) − 12 (au, u)



− 1 − i(u, y)χ Bˆ (y) ν(dy) fˆ(u)du.

The required result now follows immediately from elementary properties of the Fourier transform, all of which can be found in Section 3.8. Of course an interchange of integrals is required, but this is justified by Fubini’s theorem in a similar way to the arguments given above. Note 1 The alert reader will have noticed that we have appeared to have cheated in our proof of (2), in that we have computed the generator using the pointwise limit instead of the uniform one. In fact the operators defined by both limits coincide in this context; see Sato [274], Lemma 31.7, p. 209. Note 2 An alternative derivation of the important formula (3.13), which does not employ the calculus of pseudo-differential operators or Schwartz space, can be found in Sato [274], pp. 205–12. It is also shown therein that Cc∞ (Rd ) is a core for A and that C02 (Rd ) ⊆ D A . Note that C02 (Rd ) is dense in C0 (Rd ). We will establish the result C02 (Rd ) ⊆ D A later on, using stochastic calculus. An alternative analytic approach to these ideas may be found in Courr`ege [74].

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

141

Note 3 The results of Theorem 3.3.3 can be written in the convenient shorthand form

(T
(t) f )(u) = etη(u) fˆ(u),

f (u) = η(u) fˆ(u) A

for each t ≥ 0, f ∈ S(Rd ), u ∈ Rd . We will now consider a number of examples of specific forms of (3.13) corresponding to important examples of L´evy processes. Example 3.3.4 (Standard Brownian motion) Let X be a standard Brownian motion in Rd . Then X has characteristics (0, I, 0), and so we see from (3.13) that d 1 1 A= ∂ 2 = , 2 i=1 i 2

where  is the usual Laplacian operator. Example 3.3.5 (Brownian motion with drift) Let X be a Brownian motion with drift in Rd . Then X has characteristics (b, a, 0) and A is a diffusion operator of the form

1 A = bi ∂i + a i j ∂i ∂ j . 2 Of course, we can construct far more general diffusions in which each bi and a i j is a function of x, and we will discuss this later in the chapter. The rationale behind the use of the term ‘diffusion’ will be explained in Chapter 6. Example 3.3.6 (The Poisson process) Let X be a Poisson process with intensity λ > 0. Then X has characteristics (0, 0, λδ1 ) and A is a difference operator,

(A f )(x) = λ( f (x + 1) − f (x)), for all f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd . Note that ||A f || ≤ 2λ|| f ||, so that A extends to a bounded operator on the whole of C0 (Rd ). Example 3.3.7 (The compound Poisson process) We leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that



(A f )(x) =

Rd



f (x + y) − f (x) ν(dy)

142

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

for all f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , where ν is a finite measure. The operator A again extends to a bounded operator on the whole of C0 (Rd ). Example 3.3.8 (Rotationally invariant stable processes) Let X be a rotationally invariant stable process of index α, where 0 < α < 2. Its symbol is given by η(u) = −|u|α for all u ∈ Rd (see Subsection 1.2.5), where we have taken σ = 1 for convenience. It is instructive to pretend that η is the symbol for a legitimate differential operator; then, using the usual correspondence u j → −i∂ j for 1 ≤ j ≤ d, we would write

α  2 2 2 A = η(D) = − −∂1 − ∂2 − · · · − ∂d = −(−)α/2 .

In fact, it is very useful to interpret η(D) as a fractional power of the Laplacian. We will consider fractional powers of more general generators in the next section. Example 3.3.9 (Relativistic Schr¨odinger operators) Fix m, c > 0 and recall from Subsection 1.2.6 the L´evy symbol −E m,c , which represents (minus) the free energy of a particle of mass m moving at relativistic speeds (when d = 3):

E m,c (u) =

 m 2 c4 + c2 |u|2 − mc2 .

Arguing as above, we make the correspondence u j → −i∂ j , for 1 ≤ j ≤ d. Readers with a background in physics will recognise that this is precisely the prescription for quantisation of the free energy, and the corresponding generator is then given by

  A = − m 2 c4 − c2  − mc2 .

Physicists call −A a relativistic Schr¨odinger operator. Of course, it is more natural from the point of view of quantum mechanics to consider this as an operator in L 2 (Rd ), and we will address such considerations later in this chapter. For more on relativistic Schr¨odinger operators from both a probabilistic and physical point of view, see Carmona et al. [64] and references therein. Note Readers trained in physics should note that we are employing a system of units wherein h¯ = 1. Exercise 3.3.10 Show that Schwartz space is a core for the Laplacian. (Hint: Use Theorem 3.2.8.)

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

143

We will now examine the resolvent of a L´evy process from the Fourieranalytic point of view and show that it is always a convolution operator. Theorem 3.3.11 If X is a L´evy process, with associated Feller semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) and resolvent Rλ for each λ > 0, then there exists a finite measure µλ on Rd such that

R λ ( f ) = f ∗ µλ for each f ∈ S(Rd ). Proof Fix λ > 0, let η be the L´evy symbol of X and define rλ : Rd → C by rλ (u) = 1/[λ − η(u)]. Since (η(u)) ≤ 0 for all u ∈ Rd , it is clear that rλ is well defined, and we have



∞

rλ (u) =

e−λt etη(u) dt

0

for each u ∈ Rd . We will now show that rλ is positive definite. For each c1 , . . . , cn ∈ C and u 1 , . . . , u n ∈ Rd , d 



∞

ci c j rλ (u i − u j ) = 0

i, j=1

d 

e−λt

ci c j etη(u i −u j ) dt ≥ 0,

i, j=1

as u → etη(u) , is positive definite. Since u → η(u) is continuous, so also is u → rλ (u) and hence, by a slight variant on Bochner’s theorem, there exists a finite measure µλ on B(Rd ) for which −d/2



rλ (u) = µ λ (u) = (2π )

Rd

e−i(u,x) µλ (d x)

for all u ∈ Rd . Now we can apply Theorem 3.2.9, Theorem 3.3.3(2), Fubini’s theorem and known results on the Fourier transform of a convolution (see Section 3.8) to find that for all f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,



(Rλ f )(x) =

∞

e−λt (Tt f )(x)dt

0 −d/2



∞

= (2π )

= (2π )−d/2

e 

0

Rd

−λt

 Rd

ei(u,x) fˆ(u)

e

i(u,x) tη(u)

e

 0

∞

 ˆ f (u)du dt

 e−λt etη(u) dt du

144

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

−d/2



= (2π )

−d/2



= (2π )

= (2π )−d/2



ei(u,x) fˆ(u)rλ (u)du

Rd

µλ (u)du ei(u,x) fˆ(u)

Rd

ei(u,x) f
∗ µλ (u)du

Rd

= ( f ∗ µλ )(x). Exercise 3.3.12 Show that, for all B ∈ B(Rd ),



∞

µλ (B) =

e−λt p X (t) (−B)dt;

0

see Bertoin [36], p. 23. Just like the semigroup and its generator, the resolvent can also be represented as a pseudo-differential operator. In fact, for each λ > 0, Rλ has symbol [λ − η(·)]−1 . The following makes this precise: Corollary 3.3.13 For each λ > 0, f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , −d/2

(Rλ f )(x) = (2π )

 Rd

ei(x,u)

fˆ(u) du λ − η(u)

Proof This is implicit in the proof of Theorem 3.3.11. We remark that an interesting partial converse to Theorem 3.3.3(1) is established in Reed and Simon [258], as follows. Let F : Rd → C be such that there exists k ∈ R with (F(x)) ≥ k for all x ∈ Rd . Theorem 3.3.14 (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a positivity-preserving semigroup in L 2 (Rd ) with −t F(u) ˆ  f (u) T t f (u) = e

for all f ∈ S(Rd ), u ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0, if and only if F = −η, where η is a L´evy symbol. The proof can be found in pages 215–22 of Reed and Simon [258].

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

145

3.3.3 Subordination of semigroups We now apply some of the ideas developed above to the subordination of semigroups. It is recommended that readers recall the basic properties of subordinators as described in Subsection 1.3.2. In the following, X will always denote a L´evy process in Rd with symbol η X , Feller semigroup (Tt X , t ≥ 0) and generator A X . Let S = (S(t), t ≥ 0) be a subordinator, so that S is a one-dimensional, non-decreasing L´evy process and, for each u, t > 0,

E(e−u S(t) ) = e−tψ(u) , where ψ is the Bernstein function given by



∞

ψ(u) = bu +

(1 − e−uy )λ(dy)

0

∞

with b ≥ 0 and 0 (y ∧ 1)λ(dy) < ∞. Recall from Theorem 1.3.25 and Proposition 1.3.27 that Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) is also a L´evy process, where we define each Z (t) = X (T (t)) and the symbol of Z is η Z = −ψ ◦ (−η X ). We write (Tt Z , t ≥ 0) and A Z for the semigroup and generator associated with Z , respectively. Theorem 3.3.15 (1) For all t ≥ 0, f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,


(2) For all f ∈

 Tt Z f (x) =



∞




0

S(Rd ),



∞

A f = bA f + Z

 TsX f (x) p S(t) (ds).

X




0

 TsX f − f λ(ds).

Proof (1) In Exercise 1.3.26, we established that for each t ≥ 0, B ∈ B(Rd ), ∞ p Z (t) (B) = 0 p X (s) (B) p S(t) (ds). Hence for each t ≥ 0, f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , we obtain




 Tt Z f (x) = E( f (Z (t) + x)) =  =

∞

 Rd

0

 =

0

∞






Rd

f (x + y) p Z (t) (dy)

 f (x + y) p X (s) (dy) p S(t) (ds)

 TsX f (x) p S(t) (ds).

146

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

(2) From the first equation in the proof of Theorem 1.3.33, we obtain for each u ∈ Rd ,



η Z (u) = bη X (u) +

∞



  exp sη X (u) − 1 λ(ds),

(3.14)

0

but by Theorem 3.3.3(2) we have −d/2



(A f )(x) = (2π ) Z

Rd

ei(u,x) η Z (u) fˆ(u)du.

(3.15)

The required result now follows from substitution of (3.14) into (3.15), a straightforward application of Fubini’s theorem and a further application of Theorem 3.3.3(1), (2). The details are left as an exercise for the reader. The formula η Z = −ψ ◦ (−η X ) suggests a natural functional calculus wherein we define A Z = −ψ(−A X ) for any Bernstein function ψ. As an example, we may generalise the fractional power of the Laplacian, discussed in the last section, to define (−A X )α for any L´evy process X and any 0 < α < 1. To carry this out, we employ the α-stable subordinator (see Example 1.3.18). This has characteristics (0, λ) where

λ(d x) =

dx α . (1 − α) x 1+α

Theorem 3.3.15(2) then yields the beautiful formula

α −(−A ) f = (1 − α) X α



0

∞

(TsX f − f )

ds s 1+α

(3.16)

for all f ∈ S(Rd ). Theorem 3.3.15 has a far-reaching generalisation, which we will now quote without proof. Theorem 3.3.16 (Phillips) Let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be a strongly continuous contraction semigroup of linear operators on a Banach space B with infinitesimal generator A and let (S(t), t ≥ 0) be a subordinator with characteristics (b, λ). • The prescription

 Tt φ =

∞

S

(Ts φ) p S(t) (ds),

0

for each t ≥ 0, φ ∈ B, defines a strongly continuous contraction semigroup (TtS , t ≥ 0) in B.

3.3 Semigroups and generators of L´evy processes

147

• If A S is the infinitesimal generator of (TtS , t ≥ 0), then D A is a core for A S and, for each φ ∈ D A ,



∞

A φ = b Aφ + S

0

(TsX φ − φ)λ(ds).

• If B = C0 (Rd ) and (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a Feller semigroup, then (TtS , t ≥ 0) is also a Feller semigroup. For a proof of this result see e.g. Sato [274], pp. 212–5, or Section 5.3 in Jacob [149]. This powerful theorem enables the extension of (3.16) to define fractional powers of a large class of infinitesimal generators of semigroups (see also Schilling [275]). To give Theorem 3.3.16 a probabilistic flavour, let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a homogeneous Markov process and S = (S(t), t ≥ 0) be an independent subordinator; then we can form the process Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0), where Y (t) = X (T (t)) for each t ≥ 0. For each t ≥ 0, f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , define


 (TtY f )(x) = E f (Y (t))|Y (0) = x . Then by direct computation (or appealing to Phillips’ theorem, Theorem 3.3.16), we have that (TtY , t ≥ 0) is a semigroup and



(TtY f )(x) =

∞

0

(TsX f )(s) p S(t) (ds),

where (Tt X , t ≥ 0) is the semigroup associated with X . Exercise 3.3.17 Deduce that (TtY , t ≥ 0) is a Feller semigroup whenever (Tt X , t ≥ 0) is and that Y is a Feller process in this case. Exercise 3.3.18 Show that for all t ≥ 0, B ∈ B(Rd ),



∞

pY (t) (B) =

p X (s) (B) pT (t) (ds),

0

and hence deduce that, for all x ∈ Rd ,

  P Y (t) ∈ B Y (0) = x =




0

(a.s. with respect to p X (0) ).

∞


 P X (s) ∈ B  X (0) = x pT (t) (ds)

148

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

3.4 L p -Markov semigroups We have seen above how Feller processes naturally give rise to associated Feller semigroups acting in the Banach space C0 (Rd ). Sometimes, it is more appropriate to examine the process via semigroups induced in L p (Rd ), where 1 ≤ p < ∞, and the present section is devoted to this topic.

3.4.1 L p -Markov semigroups and L´evy processes We fix 1 ≤ p < ∞ and let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be a strongly continuous contraction semigroup of operators in L p (Rd ). We say that it is sub-Markovian if f ∈ L p (Rd ) and

0≤ f ≤1

a.e.

⇒

0 ≤ Tt f ≤ 1

a.e.

for all t ≥ 0. Any semigroup on L p (Rd ) can be restricted to the dense subspace Cc (Rd ). If this restriction can then be extended to a semigroup on Bb (Rd ) that satisfies Tt (1) = 1 then the semigroup is said to be conservative. A semigroup that is both sub-Markovian and conservative is said to be L p Markov. Notes (1) Readers should be mindful that the phrases ‘strongly continuous’ and ‘contraction’ in the to the L p -norm, given
above definition 1/ pare now with respect p p d by ||g|| p = Rd |g(x)| d x for each g ∈ L (R ). (2) If (Tt , t ≥ 0) is sub-Markovian then it is L p -positivity preserving, in that f ∈ L p (Rd ) and f ≥ 0 (a.e.) ⇒ Tt f ≥ 0 (a.e.) for all t ≥ 0; see Jacob [149], p. 365, for a proof. Example 3.4.1 Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a Markov process on Rd and define the usual stochastic evolution


 (Tt f )(x) = E f (X (t))|X (0) = x for each f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0. Suppose that (Tt , t ≥ 0) also yields a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on L p (Rd ); then it is clearly L p Markov. Our good friends the L´evy processes provide a natural class for which the conditions of the last example hold, as the next theorem demonstrates.

3.4 L p -Markov semigroups

149

Theorem 3.4.2 If X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is a L´evy process then, for each 1 ≤ p < ∞, the prescription (Tt f )(x) = E( f (X (t) + x)) where f ∈ L p (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0 gives rise to an L p -Markov semigroup (Tt ≥ 0). Proof Let qt be the law of X (t) for each t ≥ 0. We must show that each Tt : L p (Rd ) → L p (Rd ). In fact, for all f ∈ L p (Rd ), t ≥ 0, by Jensen’s inequality (or H¨older’s inequality if you prefer) and Fubini’s theorem, we obtain

p     = f (x + y)qt (dy) d x  Rd Rd   | f (x + y)| p qt (dy)d x ≤ d d R R    p = | f (x + y)| d x qt (dy) 

||Tt f

|| pp

Rd

 =

Rd



 | f (x)| d x qt (dy) = || f || pp , p

Rd

Rd

and we have proved that each Tt is a contraction in L p (Rd ). Now we need to establish the semigroup property Ts+t f = Ts Tt f for all s, t ≥ 0. By Theorem 3.1.9 and the above, we see that this holds for all f ∈ C0 (Rd )∩L p (Rd ). However, this space is dense in L p (Rd ), which follows from that fact that Cc (Rd ) ⊂ C0 (Rd ) ∩ L p (Rd ), and the result follows by continuity since each Tt is bounded. Finally, we must prove strong continuity. First we let f ∈ Cc (Rd ) and choose a ball B centred on the origin in Rd . Then, using Jensen’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem as above, we obtain for each t ≥ 0

p      dx  f (x + y) − f (x) q = (dy) t   d Rd R    ≤ | f (x + y) − f (x)| p d x qt (dy) 

||Tt f − f

|| pp

Rd

B





+

Rd

Bc



 ≤

 | f (x + y) − f (x)| d x qt (dy) p



| f (x + y) − f (x)| d x qt (dy) p

Rd



+

B



 2 max{| f (x + y)| , | f (x)| }d x qt (dy) p

Rd

Bc

p

p

≤ sup sup | f (x + y) − f (x)| p |B| + 2 p || f || pp qt (B c ), y∈B x∈R d

150

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

where |B| denotes the Lebesgue measure of B. By choosing B to have sufficiently small radius, we obtain limt↓0 ||Tt f − f || p = 0 from the uniform continuity of f and the weak continuity of (qt , t ≥ 0), just as in the proof of Theorem 3.1.9. Now let f ∈ L p (Rd ) be arbitrary and choose a sequence ( f n , n ∈ N) in Cc (Rd ) that converges to f . Using the triangle inequality and the fact that each Tt is a contraction we obtain, for each t ≥ 0,

||Tt f − f || ≤ ||Tt f n − f n || + ||Tt ( f − f n )|| + || f − f n || ≤ ||Tt f n − f n || + 2|| f − f n ||, from which the required result follows. For the case p = 2 we can compute explicitly the domain of the infinitesimal generator of a L´evy process. To establish this result, let X be a L´evy process with L´evy symbol η and let A be the infinitesimal generator of the associated L 2 -Markov semigroup. Exercise 3.4.3 Using the fact that the Fourier transform is a unitary isomorphism of L 2 (Rd , C) (see Subsection 3.8.4), show that

(Tt f )(x) = (2π )−d/2

 Rd

ei(u,x) etη(u) fˆ(u)du

for all t ≥ 0, x ∈ Rd , f ∈ L 2 (Rd ). Define Hη (Rd ) = have





f ∈ L 2 (Rd ); Rd |η(u)|2 | fˆ(u)|2 du < ∞ . Then we

Theorem 3.4.4 D A = Hη (Rd ). Proof We follow Berg and Forst [35], p. 92. Let f ∈ D A ; then A f = limt↓0 [(1/t)(Tt f − f )] in L 2 (Rd ). We take Fourier transforms and use the continuity of F to obtain

f = lim 1 (T  ˆ A t f − f ). t↓0 t By the result of Exercise 3.4.3, we have

f = lim 1 (etη fˆ − fˆ); A t↓0 t

3.4 L p -Markov semigroups

151

hence, for any sequence (tn , n ∈ N) in R+ for which limn→∞ tn = 0, we get

f = lim 1 (etn η fˆ − fˆ) A n→∞ tn

a.e.

f = η fˆ (a.e.). But then However, limn→∞ [(1/tn )(etn η − 1)] = η and so A η fˆ ∈ L 2 (Rd ), i.e. f ∈ Hη (Rd ). So we have established that D A ⊆ Hη (Rd ). Conversely, let f ∈ Hη (Rd ); then by Exercise 3.4.3 again,

1  1 tη ˆ 2 d ˆ ˆ ˆ lim (T t f − f ) = lim (e f − f ) = η f ∈ L (R ). t→0 t t→0 t Hence, by the unitarity and continuity of the Fourier transform, limt↓0 [(1/t)(Tt f − f )] ∈ L 2 (Rd ) and so f ∈ D A . Readers should note that the proof has also established the pseudodifferential operator representation −d/2



A f = (2π )

Rd

ei(u,x) η(u) fˆ(u)du

for all f ∈ Hη (Rd ). The space Hη (Rd ) is called an anisotropic Sobolev space by Jacob [148]. Note that if we take X to be a standard Brownian motion then η(u) = − 12 |u|2 for all u ∈ Rd and



Hη (R ) = d



f ∈ L (R ); 2

d

2 ˆ |u| | f (u)| du < ∞ . 4

Rd

This is precisely the Sobolev space, which is usually denoted H2 (Rd ) and which can be defined equivalently as the completion of Cc∞ (Rd ) with respect to the norm



|| f ||2 =

Rd

(1 + |u|2 )2 | fˆ(u)|2 du

1/2

for each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). By Theorem 3.4.4, H2 (Rd ) is the domain of the Laplacian  acting in L 2 (Rd ). Exercise 3.4.5 Write down the domains of the fractional powers of the Laplacian (−)α/2 , where 0 < α < 2. For more on this topic, including interpolation between L p and L q subMarkovian semigroups ( p < q < ∞) and between L p sub-Markovian semigroups and Feller semigroups, see Farkas et al. [100].

152

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

3.4.2 Self-adjoint semigroups We begin with some general considerations. Let H be a Hilbert space and (Tt , t ≥ 0) be a strongly continuous contraction semigroup in H . We say that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is self-adjoint if Tt = Tt∗ for each t ≥ 0. Theorem 3.4.6 There is a one-to-one correspondence between the generators of self-adjoint semigroups in H and linear operators A in H such that −A is positive and self-adjoint. Proof We follow Davies [76], pp. 99–100. In fact we will prove only that half of the theorem which we will use, and we commend [76] to the reader for the remainder. Suppose that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a self-adjoint semigroup with generator A, and consider the Bochner integral



Xψ =

∞

Tt e−t ψ dt

0

for each ψ ∈ H ; then it is easily verified that X is a bounded self-adjoint operator (in fact, X is a contraction). Furthermore, by Theorem 3.2.9, we have X = (I + A)−1 , hence (I + A)−1 is self-adjoint. We now invoke the spectral theorem (Theorem 3.8.8) to deduce that

there exists a projection-valued measure P in H such that (I + A)−1 = R λP(dλ). If we define f : R → R by f (λ) = (1/λ)−1 then A = R f (λ)P(dλ) is self-adjoint. By Theorem 3.2.10, (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(A); hence σ (A) ⊆ (−∞, 0) and so −A is positive. There is a class of Markov processes that will be important in Section 3.6, where we study Dirichlet forms. Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a Markov process with associated semigroup (T (t), t ≥ 0) and let µ be a Borel measure on Rd . We say that X is a µ-symmetric process if





Rd

f (x)(Tt g)(x)µ(d x) =

Rd

(Tt f )(x)g(x)µ(d x)

(3.17)

for all t ≥ 0 and all f, g ∈ Bb (Rd ) with f, g ≥ 0 (a.e. µ). Readers should be clear that the integrals in (3.17) may be (simultaneously) infinite. In the case where µ is a Lebesgue measure, we simply say that X is Lebesgue symmetric. Exercise 3.4.7 Let X be a normal Markov process with a transition density ρ for which ρ(x, y) = ρ(y, x) for all x, y ∈ Rd . Show that X is Lebesgue symmetric.

3.4 L p -Markov semigroups

153

Theorem 3.4.8 If X is a µ-symmetric Markov process with associated semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) and ||Tt f ||2 < ∞ for all f ∈ Cc (Rd ) with f ≥ 0, then (Tt , t ≥ 0) is self-adjoint in L 2 (Rd , µ). Proof By linearity, if f, g ∈ Cc (Rd ), with f ≥ 0 and g ≤ 0, we still have that (3.17) holds and both integrals are finite. Now let f, g ∈ Cc (Rd ) be arbitrary; then, writing f = f + − f − and g = g + − g − , we again deduce by linearity that (3.17) holds in this case. Finally let f, g ∈ L 2 (Rd , µ); then, by the density therein of Cc (Rd ), we can find sequences ( f n , n ∈ N) and (gn , n ∈ N) in Cc (Rd ) that converge to f and g respectively. Using the continuity of Tt and of the inner product, we find for each t ≥ 0 that

 f, Tt g = lim lim  f n , Tt gm  = lim lim Tt f n , gm  = Tt f, g. n→∞ m→∞

n→∞ m→∞

Now let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a L´evy process taking values in Rd . We have already seen in Theorem 3.4.2 that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is an L p -Markov semigroup where (Tt f )(x) = E( f (X (t) + x) for each f ∈ L p (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0. We recall that a L´evy process with laws (qt , t ≥ 0) is symmetric if qt (A) = qt (−A) for all A ∈ B(Rd ). Exercise 3.4.9 Deduce that every symmetric L´evy process is a Lebesguesymmetric Markov process. Although we could use the result of Exercise 3.4.9 and Theorem 3.4.8 to establish the first part of Theorem 3.4.10 below, we will find it more instructive to give an independent proof. Theorem 3.4.10 If X is a L´evy process, then its associated semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) is self-adjoint in L 2 (Rd ) if and only if X is symmetric. Proof Suppose that X is symmetric; then qt (A) = qt (−A) for each A ∈ B(Rd ), t ≥ 0, where qt is the law of X (t). Then for each f ∈ L 2 (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0,



(Tt f )(x) = E( f (x + X (t)) =  =

Rd

Rd

f (x + y)qt (dy)

f (x + y)qt (−dy) =

= E( f (x − X (t)).

 Rd

f (x − y)qt (dy)

154

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

So for each f, g ∈ L 2 (Rd ), t ≥ 0, using Fubini’s theorem, we obtain



Tt f, g =



Rd

 =

Rd

 =

Rd

(Tt f )(x)g(x)d x =

Rd





E( f (x − X (t)) g(x)d x



Rd

Rd

f (x − y)g(x)d x qt (dy)  f (x)g(x + y)d x qt (dy)

=  f, Tt g. Conversely, suppose that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is self-adjoint. Then by a similar argument to the one above, we deduce that for all f, g ∈ L 2 (Rd ), t ≥ 0,

 Rd

 E( f (x + X (t)) g(x)d x =

Rd

E( f (x − X (t)) g(x)d x.

Now define a sequence of functions (gn , n ∈ N) by

gn (x) = n

−d/2

 π x2 . exp − n 

Then each gn ∈ S(Rd ) ⊂ L 2 (Rd ), and

 lim

n→∞

Rd

E( f (x ± X (t))gn (x)d x = E( f (±X (t));

see e.g. Lieb and Loss [196], Theorem 2.16, p. 58 and the argument in the proof of Theorem 5.3, p. 118 therein. We thus deduce that E( f (X (t)) = E( f (−X (t)) and, if we take f = χ A where A ∈ B(Rd ), we obtain

P(X (t) ∈ A) = P(X (t) ∈ −A), i.e. X is symmetric. Corollary 3.4.11 If A is the infinitesimal generator of a L´evy process with L´evy symbol η, then −A is positive and self-adjoint if and only if

 η(u) = − 12 (u, au) +

Rd −{0}



cos(u, y) − 1 ν(dy)

3.4 L p -Markov semigroups

155

for each u ∈ Rd , where a is a positive definite symmetric matrix and ν is a symmetric L´evy measure. Proof This follows immediately from Theorems 3.4.10 and 3.4.6 and Exercise 2.4.23. Equivalently, we see that A is self-adjoint if and only if η = 0. In particular, we find that the discussion of this section has yielded a probabilistic proof of the self-adjointness of some important operators in L 2 (Rd ), as is shown in the following examples. Example 3.4.12 (The Laplacian) In fact, we consider multiples of the Laplacian and let a = 2γ I where γ > 0; then, for all u ∈ Rd ,

η(u) = −γ |u|2

and

A = γ .

Example 3.4.13 (Fractional powers of the Laplacian) Let 0 < α < 2; then, for all u ∈ Rd ,

η(u) = |u|α

A = −(−)α/2 .

and

Example 3.4.14 (Relativistic Schr¨odinger operators) Let m, c > 0; then, for all u ∈ Rd ,

 E m,c (u) = m 2 c4 + c2 |u|2 −mc2

and

 A = −( m 2 c4 − c2 −mc2 );

recall Example 3.3.9. Note that in all three of the above examples the domain of the operator is the appropriate non-isotropic Sobolev space of Theorem 3.4.4. Examples 3.4.12 and 3.4.14 are important in quantum mechanics as the observables (modulo a minus sign) that describe the kinetic energy of a particle moving at non-relativistic speeds (for a suitable value of γ ) and relativistic speeds, respectively. We emphasise that it is vital that we know that such operators really are self-adjoint (and not just symmetric, say) so that they legitimately satisfy the quantum-mechanical formalism. Note that, in general, if A X is the self-adjoint generator of a L´evy process and (S(t), t ≥ 0) is an independent subordinator then the generator A Z of the subordinated process Z is also self-adjoint. This follows immediately from (3.14) in the proof of Theorem 3.3.15(2).

156

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

3.5 L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle 3.5.1 The positive maximum principle and Courr`ege’s theorems Let X be a L´evy process with characteristics (b, a, ν), L´evy symbol η and generator A. We remind the reader of key results from Theorem 3.3.3. For each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,

(A f )(x) = bi ∂i f (x) + 12 a i j ∂i ∂ j f (x)  + [ f (x + y) − f (x) − y i ∂i f (x)χ Bˆ (y)]ν(dy), Rd −{0}

(3.18) and A is a pseudo-differential operator with symbol η, i.e. −d/2

(A f )(x) = (2π )



Rd

ei(u,x) η(u) fˆ(u)du.

(3.19)

In this section, we turn our attention to general Feller processes and ask the question, to what extent are the above representations typical of these? Clearly L´evy processes are a special case and, to go beyond these, we must abandon translation invariance (see Theorem 3.3.1), in which case we would expect variable coefficients (b(x), a(x), ν(x)) in (3.18) and a variable symbol η(x, ·) in (3.19). In this section, we will survey some of the theoretical structure underlying Feller processes having generators with such a form. The key to this is the following analytical concept. Let S be a linear operator in C0 (Rd ) with domain D S . We say that S satisfies the positive maximum principle if, whenever f ∈ D S and there exists x0 ∈ Rd such that f (x0 ) = supx∈Rd f (x) ≥ 0, we have (S f )(x0 ) ≤ 0. Our first hint that the positive maximum principle may be of some use in probability comes from the following variant on the Hille–Yosida theorem (Theorem 3.2.10). Theorem 3.5.1 (Hille–Yosida–Ray) A densely defined closed linear operator A is the generator of a strongly continuous positivity-preserving contraction semigroup on C0 (Rd ) if and only if (1) (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(A), (2) A satisfies the positive maximum principle. For a proof, see Ethier and Kurtz [99], pp. 165–6, or Jacob [149], Section 4.5. Just as in the case of Theorem 3.2.10, the above, theorem can be generalised in such a way as to weaken the condition on A and simply require it to be closable.

3.5 L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle

157

Now we return to probability theory and make a direct connection between the positive maximum principle and the theory of Markov processes. Theorem 3.5.2 If X is a Feller process, then its generator A satisfies the positive maximum principle. Proof We follow Revuz and Yor [260], Section 7.1. Let f ∈ D A and suppose there exists x0 ∈ Rd such that f (x0 ) = supx∈Rd f (x) ≥ 0. Let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be the associated Feller semigroup and ( pt , t ≥ 0) be the transition probabilities; then, by (3.3), we have



(Tt f )(x0 ) = Hence

1 (A f )(x0 ) = lim t↓0 t

Rd



 Rd

f (y) pt (x0 , dy).

f (y) − f (x0 ) pt (x0 , dy).

However, for each y ∈ Rd ,

f (y) − f (x0 ) ≤ sup f (y) − f (x0 ) = 0, y∈R d

and so (A f )(x0 ) ≤ 0 as required. We will now present some fundamental results due to Courr`ege [75], which classify linear operators that satisfy the positive maximum principle. First we need some preliminary concepts. (1) A C ∞ mapping φ : Rd × Rd → [0, 1] will be called a local unit if: (i) φ(x, y) = 1 for all (x, y) in a neighbourhood of the diagonal D = {(x, x); x ∈ Rd }; (ii) for every compact set K in Rd the mappings y → φ(x, y), where x ∈ K , have their support in a fixed compact set in Rd . (2) A mapping f : Rd → R is said to be upper semicontinuous if f (x) ≥ lim sup y→x f (y) for all x ∈ Rd . (3) A L´evy kernel is a family {µ(x, ·), x ∈ Rd }, where each µ(x, ·) is a Borel measure on Rd − {x}, such that: (i) the mapping x → Rd −{x} |y − x|2 f (y)µ(x, dy) is Borel measurable and locally bounded for each f ∈ Cc (Rd ); (ii) for each x ∈ Rd , and for every neighbourhood Vx of x, µ(x, Rd −Vx ) < ∞. Now we can state the first of Courr`ege’s remarkable theorems.

158

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Theorem 3.5.3 (Courr`ege’s first theorem) If A is a linear operator in C0 (Rd ) and Cc∞ (Rd ) ⊆ D A , then A satisfies the positive maximum principle if and only if there exist • continuous functions c and b j , 1 ≤ j ≤ d, from Rd to R such that c(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ Rd , • mappings a i j : Rd → R, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, such that (a i j (x)) is a positive definite symmetric matrix for each x ∈ Rd and the map x → (y, a(x)y) is upper semicontinuous for each y ∈ Rd , • a L´evy kernel µ, • a local unit φ, such that for all f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,

(A f )(x) = c(x) f (x) + bi (x)∂i f (x) + a i j (x)∂i ∂ j f (x)  + [ f (y) − f (x) − φ(x, y)(y i − x i )∂i f (x)]µ(x, dy). Rd −{x}

(3.20) A full proof of this result can be found in Courr`ege [75] or Section 4.5 of Jacob [149]. It is tempting to interpret (3.20) probabilistically, in terms of a killing rate c, a drift vector b, a diffusion matrix a and a jump term controlled by µ. We will return to this later. Note that both Courr`ege and Jacob write the integral term in (3.20) as



Rd −{x}

[ f (y) − φ(x, y) f (x) − φ(x, y)(y i − x i )∂i f (x)]µ(x, dy).

This is equivalent to the form we have given since, by definition of φ, we can find a neighbourhood N x of each x ∈ Rd such that φ(x, y) = 1 for all y ∈ N x ; then



 N xc

φ(x, y) − 1 µ(x, dy) < ∞,

and so this integral can be absorbed into the ‘killing term’. Suppose that we are give a linear operator A in C0 (Rd ) for which ∞ Cc (Rd ) ⊆ D A . We say that it is of L´evy type if it has the form (3.20). Exercise 3.5.4 Show that the generator of a L´evy process can be written in the form (3.20). Now we turn our attention to pseudo-differential operator representations.

3.5 L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle

159

Theorem 3.5.5 (Courr`ege’s second theorem) Let A be a linear operator in C0 (Rd ); suppose that Cc∞ (Rd ) ⊆ D A and that A satisfies the positive maximum principle. For each x, u ∈ Rd , define

η(x, u) = e−i(x,u) (Aei(·,u) )(x).

(3.21)

Then: • for every x ∈ Rd , the map u → η(x, u) is continuous, hermitian and conditionally positive definite; • there exists a positive locally bounded function h : Rd → R such that, for each x, u ∈ Rd ,

|η(x, u)| ≤ h(x)|u|2 ; • for every f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , −d/2

(A f )(x) = (2π )

 Rd

ei(u,x) η(x, u) fˆ(u)du.

(3.22)

Conversely, if η is a continuous map from Rd ×Rd to C that is hermitian and conditionally positive definite in the second variable then the linear operator defined by (3.22) satisfies the positive maximum principle. Note that it is implicit in the statement of the theorem that A is such that (3.21) makes sense. Probabilistically, the importance of Courr`ege’s theorems derives from Theorem 3.5.2. If A is the generator of a Feller process and satisfies the domain condition Cc∞ (Rd ) ⊆ D A then it can be represented as a L´evy-type operator of the form (3.20), by Theorem 3.5.3, or a pseudo-differential operator of the form (3.22), by Theorem 3.5.5. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in the converse to the last statement. Given a pseudo-differential operator A whose symbol η is continuous from Rd × Rd to C and hermitian and conditionally positive definite in the second variable, under what further conditions does A generate a (sub-) Feller process? One line of attack follows immediately from Theorem 3.5.5: since A must satisfy the positive maximum principle we can try to fulfil the other condition of the Hille–Yosida–Ray theorem (Theorem 3.5.1) and then use positivity of the semigroup to generate transition probabilities from which a process can be built using Kolmogorov’s construction, as in Theorem 3.1.7. Other approaches to constructing a process include the use of Dirichlet forms (see Section 3.6) and martingale problems (see Subsection 6.7.3). The pioneers in investigating these questions have been Niels Jacob and his collaborators Ren´e Schilling and Walter Hoh. To go more deeply into their methods and

160

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

results would be beyond the scope of the present volume but interested readers are referred to the monograph by Jacob [148], the review article by Jacob and Schilling in [23] and references therein. Schilling has also used the analytical behaviour of the generator, in its pseudo-differential operator representation, to obtain sample-path properties of the associated Feller process. In [277] he studied the limiting behaviour, for both t ↓ 0 and t → ∞, while estimates on the Hausdorff dimension of the paths were obtained in [278].

3.5.2 Examples of L´evy-type operators Here we will consider three interesting examples of L´evy-type operators. Example 3.5.6 (Diffusion operators) Consider a second-order differential operator of the form

(A f )(x) = bi (x)∂i f (x) + a i j (x)∂i ∂ j f (x), for each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ), x ∈ Rd . In general, it is possible to construct a Markov process X in Rd that is naturally associated with A under quite general conditions on b and a. We call X a diffusion process and A the associated diffusion operator. Specifically, we require only that each bi be bounded and measurable and that the a i j are bounded and continuous, the matrix (a i j (x)) being positive definite and symmetric for each x ∈ Rd . We will discuss this in greater detail in Chapter 6. Conditions under which X is a Feller process will also be investigated there. Example 3.5.7 (Feller’s pseudo-Poisson process) Here we give an example of a genuine Feller process whose generator is a L´evy-type operator. It was called the pseudo-Poisson process by Feller [102], pp. 333–5. Let S = (S(n), n ∈ N) be a homogeneous Markov chain taking values in d R . For each n ∈ N, we denote its n-step transition probabilities by q (n) so that for each x ∈ Rd , B ∈ B(Rd ),


 q (n) (x, B) = P S(n) ∈ B|S(0) = x . We define the transition operator Q of the chain by the prescription



(Q f )(x) =

Rd

f (y)q(x, dy)

for each f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , where we have used the notation q = q (1) .

3.5 L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle

161

Exercise 3.5.8 Deduce that for all f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,



(Q f )(x) = n

Rd

f (y)q (n) (x, dy).

Now let N = (N (t), t ≥ 0) be a Poisson process, of intensity λ > 0, that is independent of the Markov chain S and define a new process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) by subordination,

X (t) = S(N (t)), for all t ≥ 0. Then X is a Feller process by Exercise 3.3.17. Clearly, if S is a random walk then X is nothing but a compound Poisson process. More generally, using independence and the results of Exercises 3.5.8 and 3.2.4, we obtain for each t ≥ 0, f ∈ Bb (Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,


 (Tt f )(x) = E f (X (t)) X (0) = x =

∞  
 E f (S(n)) S(0) = x P(N (t) = n) n=0

= e−λt

∞  
 (λt)n E f (S(n)) S(0) = x n! n=0

= e−λt

∞  (λt)n (Q n f )(x) n! n=0

= et[λ(Q−I )] f (x). Hence, if A is the infinitesimal generator of the restriction of (Tt , t ≥ 0) to C0 (Rd ) then A is bounded and, for all f ∈ C0 (Rd ), x ∈ Rd ,



(A f )(x) = λ((Q − I ) f )(x) =

Rd



f (y) − f (x) λq(x, dy).

Clearly A is of the form (3.20) with finite L´evy kernel µ = λq. The above construction has a converse. Define a bounded operator B on C0 (Rd ), by



(B f )(x) =

Rd



f (y) − f (x) λ(x)q(x, dy),

where λ is a non-negative bounded measurable function on Rd and q is a transition function, i.e. q(x, ·) is a probability measure on B(Rd ), for each x ∈ Rd and the map x → q(x, A) is Borel measurable for each A ∈ B(Rd ). It is

162

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

shown in Ethier and Kurtz [99], pp. 162–4, that B is the infinitesimal generator of a Feller process that has the same finite-dimensional distributions as a certain pseudo-Poisson process. Example 3.5.9 (Stable-like processes) Recall from Subsection 1.2.5 that if X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) is a rotationally invariant stable process of index α ∈ (0, 2) then it has L´evy symbol η(u) = −|u|α , for all u ∈ Rd (where we have taken σ = 1 for convenience) and L´evy–Khintchine representation



α

−|u| = K (α)

Rd −{0}

(ei(u,y) − 1 − iuyχ Bˆ )

dy , |y|d+α

where K (α) > 0. Now let α : Rd → (0, 2) be continuous; then we can assert the existence of a positive function K on Rd such that

−|u|α(x) =



Rd −{0}

(ei(u,y) − 1 − iuyχ Bˆ )

K (x)dy . |y|d+α(x)

Define a mapping ζ : Rd ×Rd → C by ζ (x, u) = −|u|α(x) . Then ζ clearly satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3.5.5 and so is the symbol of a linear operator A that satisfies the positive maximum principle. Using the representation

 (A f )(x) = −(2π )

d/2

Rd

|u|α(x) fˆ(u)ei(x,u) du

for each f ∈ S(Rd ), x ∈ Rd , we see that S(Rd ) ⊆ D A . An exercise in the use of the Fourier transform then yields

 (A f )(x) =



Rd −{0}

f (y + x) − f (x) − y j ∂ j f (x)χ Bˆ

K (x)dy |y|d+α(x)

.

It can now be easily verified that this operator is of L´evy type, with associated L´evy kernel

µ(x, dy) =

K (x)dy |y − x|d+α(x)

for each x ∈ Rd . By the usual correspondence, we can also write

(A f )(x) = (−(−)α(x)/2 f )(x).

3.5 L´evy-type operators and the positive maximum principle

163

Of course, we cannot claim at this stage that A is the generator of a Feller semigroup associated with a Feller process. Bass [29] associated a Markov process with X by solving the associated martingale problem under the additional constraint that 0 < infx∈Rd α(x) < supx∈Rd α(x) < 2. Tsuchiya [296] then obtained the process as the solution of a stochastic differential equation under the constraint that α be Lipschitz continuous. For further studies of properties of these processes see Negoro [235], Kolokoltsov [174, 175] and Uemura [298]. 3.5.3 The forward equation For completeness, we include a brief non-rigorous account of the forward equation. Let (Tt , t ≥ 0) be the semigroup associated with a L´evy-type Feller process and, for each f ∈ Dom(A), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0 write u(t, x) = (Tt f )(x); then we have the initial-value problem

∂u(t, x) = Au(t, x), ∂t

(3.23)

with initial condition u(0, x) = f (x). Let ( pt , t ≥ 0) be the transition probability measures associated with (Tt , t ≥ 0). We assume that each pt (x, ·) is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure with density ρt (x, ·). We also assume that, for each y ∈ Rd , the mapping t → ρt (x, y) is differentiable and that its derivative is uniformly bounded with respect to y. By (3.3) and dominated convergence, for each t ≥ 0, x ∈ Rd , we have for all f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ),

∂u(t, x) ∂(Tt f )(x) = ∂t ∂t  ∂ ∂ pt (x, y) = f (y) pt (x, y)dy = f (y) dy. ∂t Rd ∂t Rd On the other hand,



Au(t, x) = (Tt A f )(x) =

Rd

 =

Rd

(A f )(y) pt (x, y) dy f (y)A† pt (x, y) dy,

where A† is the ‘formal adjoint’ of A, which acts on pt through the y-variable. We thus conclude from (3.23) that



Rd

f (y)

 ∂ pt (x, y) − A† pt (x, y) dy = 0. ∂t

164

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

In the general case, there appears to be no nice form for A† ; however, if X is a killed diffusion (so that µ ≡ 0 in (3.20)), integration by parts yields

  A† pt (x, y) = c(y) pt (x, y) − ∂i bi (y) pt (x, y) + ∂i ∂ j a i j (y) pt (x, y) . In this case, the partial differential equation

∂ pt (x, y) = A† pt (x, y) ∂t

(3.24)

is usually called the Kolmogorov forward equation by probabilists and the Fokker–Planck equation by physicists. In principle, we can try to solve it with the initial condition ρ0 (x, y) = δ(x − y) and then use the density to construct the process from its transition probabilities. Notice that all the action in (3.24) is with respect to the ‘forward variables’ t and y. An alternative equation, which can be more tractable analytically, is the Kolmogorov backward equation

∂ pt−s (x, y) = −Apt−s (x, y). ∂s

(3.25)

Note that, on the right-hand side of (3.25), A operates with respect to the variable x, so this time all the action takes place in the ‘backward variables’ s and x. A nice account of this partial differential equation approach to constructing Markov processes can be found in Chapter 3 of Stroock and Varadhan [289]. The discussion of forward and backward equations in their introductory chapter is also highly recommended. Exercise 3.5.10 Find an explicit form for A† in the case where A is the generator of L´evy process.

3.6 Dirichlet forms In this section, we will attempt to give a gentle and somewhat sketchy introduction to the deep and impressive modern theory of Dirichlet forms. We will simplify matters by restricting ourselves to the symmetric case and also by continuing with our programme of studying processes whose state space is Rd . However, readers should bear in mind that some of the most spectacular applications of the theory have been to the construction of processes in quite general contexts such as fractals and infinite-dimensional spaces. For more detailed accounts, we recommend the reader to Fukushima et al. [112], Bouleau and Hirsch [55], Ma and R¨ockner [204], Chapter 3 of Jacob [148] and Chapter 4 of Jacob [149].

3.6 Dirichlet forms

165

3.6.1 Dirichlet forms and sub-Markov semigroups If you are unfamiliar with the notion of a closed symmetric form in a Hilbert space, then you should begin by reading Subsection 3.8.3. We fix the real Hilbert space H = L 2 (Rd ). By Theorem 3.8.9 there is a one-to-one correspondence between closed symmetric forms E in H and positive self-adjoint operators T in H , given by E( f ) = ||T 1/2 f ||2 for each f ∈ DT 1/2 . When we combine this with Theorem 3.4.6, we deduce that there is a one-to-one correspondence between closed symmetric forms in H and self-adjoint semigroups (Tt , t ≥ 0) in H . Now suppose that (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a self-adjoint sub-Markovian semigroup in H , so that 0 ≤ f ≤ 1 (a.e.) ⇒ 0 ≤ Tt f ≤ 1 (a.e.). We can ‘code’ the selfadjoint semigroup property into a closed symmetric form E. How can we also capture the sub-Markov property? The answer to this question is contained in the following definition. Let E be a closed symmetric form in H with domain D. We say that it is a Dirichlet form if f ∈ D ⇒ ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1 ∈ D and

E(( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1) ≤ E( f )

(3.26)

for all f ∈ D. A closed densely defined linear operator A in H with domain D A is called a Dirichlet operator if

A f, ( f − 1)+  ≤ 0 for all f ∈ D A . The following theorem describes the analytic importance of Dirichlet forms and operators. We will move on later to their probabilistic value. Theorem 3.6.1 The following are equivalent: (1) (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a self-adjoint sub-Markovian semigroup in L 2 (Rd ) with infinitesimal generator A; (2) A is a Dirichlet operator and −A is positive self-adjoint; (3) E( f ) = ||(−A)1/2 f ||2 is a Dirichlet form with domain D = D A1/2 . A proof of this can be found in Bouleau and Hirsch [55], pp. 12–13. Example 3.6.2 (Symmetric L´evy processes) Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a symmetric L´evy process. In Theorem 3.4.10 we showed that these give rise to self-adjoint L 2 -Markov semigroups and so they will induce a Dirichlet form E, by Theorem 3.6.1(3). Let A be the infinitesimal generator of the process. It

166

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

follows from Corollary 3.4.11 that, for each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ),



1 ij a ∂i ∂ j 2

(A f )(x) =

f (x) +



Rd −{0}

f (x + y) − f (x) ν(dy).

The following formula is of course just a consequence of the L´evy–Khintchine formula. Intriguingly, as we will see in the next section, it is a paradigm for the structure of symmetric Dirichlet forms. For all f, g ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ),



E( f, g) =

1 ij a 2

 +

1 2

Rd

(∂i f )(x)(∂ j g)(x)d x 

f (x) − f (x + y) (R d ×R d )−D  × g(x) − g(x + y) ν(dy)d x, (3.27)

where D is the diagonal {(x, x), x ∈ Rd }. To verify (3.27) we just use integration by parts, the symmetry of ν and a change of variable, to obtain

E( f, g) = − f, Ag  1 ij (∂i f )(x) (∂ j g)(x) d x = 2a Rd



 −

Rd

Rd −{0}



= 12 a i j

Rd

 +

1 2

 f (x) g(x + y) − g(x) ν(dy) d x

(∂i f )(x)(∂ j g)(x) d x 

Rd

 Rd −{0}

f (x + y)(g(x + y) − f (x + y)g(x)

− f (x)g(x + y) + f (x)g(x) ν(dy)d x, and the result follows. A special case of Example 3.6.2 merits particular attention: Example 3.6.3 (The energy integral) Take X to be a standard Brownian motion; then, for all f ∈ H2 (Rd ), d 1 E( f ) = 2 i=1



1 (∂i f )(x) d x = 2 Rd



2

Rd

|∇ f (x)|2 d x.

This form is often called the energy integral or the Dirichlet integral.

3.6 Dirichlet forms

167

3.6.2 The Beurling–Deny formula In this section we will see how the structure of symmetric L´evy processes generalises to a natural class of Dirichlet forms. First we need a definition. A core of a symmetric closed form E with domain D in L 2 (Rd ) is a subset C of D ∩Cc (Rd ) that is dense in D with respect to the norm ||·||E (see Subsection 3.8.3) and dense in Cc (Rd ) in the uniform norm. If E possesses such a core, it is said to be regular. Example 3.6.4 Let T be a positive symmetric linear operator in L 2 (Rd ) and suppose that Cc∞ (Rd ) is a core for T in the usual operator sense; then it is also a core for the closed form given by E( f ) =  f, T f , where f ∈ DT . We can now state the celebrated Beurling–Deny formula, Theorem 3.6.5 (Beurling–Deny) If E is a regular Dirichlet form in L 2 (Rd ) with domain D, then, for all f, g ∈ D ∩ Cc (Rd ),



E( f, g) =



∂i f (x)∂ j g(x)µ (d x) + ij

Rd



+



Rd ×Rd −D

Rd

f (x)g(x)k(d x)

 f (x) − f (y) g(x) − g(y) J (d x, dy) (3.28)

where k is a Borel measure on Rd , J is a Borel measure on Rd × Rd − D (D = {(x, x), x ∈ Rd } being the diagonal); the {µi j , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d} are Borel measures in Rd with each µi j = µ ji and (u, µ(K )u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ Rd and all compact K ∈ B(Rd ), where µ(K ) denotes the d × d matrix with (i, j)th entry µi j (K ). This important result clearly generalises (3.27), and its probabilistic interpretation is clear from the names given to the various measures that appear in (3.28): the µi j are called diffusion measures, J is called the jump measure and k is the killing measure. In general, a Dirichlet form E with domain D is said to be local if, for all f, g ∈ D for which supp ( f ) and supp (g) are disjoint compact sets, we have E( f, g) = 0. A Dirichlet form that fails to be local is often called non-local. Since partial differentiation cannot increase supports, the non-local part of the Beurling–Deny form (3.28) is that controlled by the jump measure J .

3.6.3 Closable Markovian forms In concrete applications it is quite rare to have a closed form. Fortunately, many forms that have to be dealt with have the pleasing property of being closable

168

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

(see Subsection 3.8.3). In this case, we need an analogue of definition (3.26) for such forms, so that they can code probabilistic information. Let E be a closable positive symmetric bilinear form with domain D. We say that it is Markovian if, for each ε > 0, there exists a family of infinitely differentiable functions (φε (x), x ∈ R) such that: (1) φε (x) = x for all x ∈ [0, 1]; (2) −ε ≤ φε (x) ≤ 1 + ε for all x ∈ R; (3) 0 ≤ φε (y) − φε (x) ≤ y − x whenever x, y ∈ R with x < y. Furthermore, for all f ∈ D, φε ( f ) ∈ D and

E(φε ( f )) ≤ E( f ). Exercise 3.6.6 Given (φε (x), x ∈ R) as above, show that, for each x, y ∈ Rd , |φε (x)| ≤ |x|, |φε (y) − φε (x)| ≤ |y − x| and 0 ≤ φε (x) ≤ 1. Note that when D = Cc∞ (Rd ), a family (φε (x), x ∈ R) satisfying the conditions (1) to (3) above can always be constructed using mollifiers (see e.g. Fukushima et al. [112], p. 8.) In this case we also have φε ( f ) ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) whenever f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). If we are given a closable Markovian form then we have the following result, which allows us to obtain a bona fide Dirichlet form. Theorem 3.6.7 If E is a closable Markovian symmetric form on L 2 (Rd ) then its closure E is a Dirichlet form. Proof See Fukushima et al. [112], pp. 98–9. Example 3.6.8 (Symmetric diffusions) Let a(x) = (a i j (x)) be a matrixvalued function from Rd to itself such that each a(x) is a positive definite symmetric matrix and for each 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d the mapping x → a i j (x) is Borel measurable. We consider the positive symmetric bilinear form on D given by



E( f ) =

Rd

a i j (x)∂i f (x)∂ j f (x) d x,

(3.29)

on the domain D = { f ∈ C 1 (Rd ) ∩ L 2 (Rd ), E( f ) < ∞}. Forms of the type (3.29) appear in association with elliptic second-order differential operators in divergence form, i.e.

(A f )(x) =

d  i, j=1

 ∂i a i j (x)∂ j f (x) ,

3.6 Dirichlet forms

169

for each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ), x ∈ Rd , where we assume for convenience that each a i j is bounded and differentiable. In this case, it is easily verified that A is symmetric and hence that E is closable on the domain Cc∞ (Rd ) by Theorem 3.8.10. More generally, it is shown in Fukushima et al. [112], pp. 100–1, that E as given by (3.29) is closable if either of the following two conditions is satisfied: • for each 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, a i j ∈ L 2loc (Rd ) and ∂i a i j ∈ L 2loc (Rd ). • (uniform ellipticity) there exists K > 0 such that (ξ, a(x)ξ ) ≥ K |ξ |2 for all x, ξ ∈ Rd . If E is closable on Cc∞ (Rd ) then it is Markovian. To see this, we use the result of Exercise 3.6.6 to obtain for all ε > 0, f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ),

 E(φε ( f )) =

Rd

 =  ≤

Rd

Rd

a i j (x)∂i φε ( f )(x) ∂ j φε ( f )(x) d x a i j (x)|φε ( f (x))|2 ∂i f (x)∂ j f (x) d x a i j (x)∂i f (x)∂ j f (x) d x = E( f ).

It then follows by Theorem 3.6.7 that E is indeed a Dirichlet form. Note that from a probabilistic point of view, a form of this type contains both diffusion and drift terms (unless a is constant). This is clear when E is determined by the differential operator A in divergence form. Example 3.6.9 (Symmetric jump operators) Let  be a Borel measurable mapping from Rd × Rd → R that satisfies the symmetry condition (x, y) = (y, x) for all x, y ∈ Rd . We introduce the form

E( f ) =

1 2





Rd ×Rd −D

2 f (y) − f (x) (x, y)d x,

(3.30)

with domain Cc∞ (Rd ). We examine the case where E is induced by a linear operator A for which

 (A f )(x) = for f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ).

Rd −{x}



f (y) − f (x) (x, y)dy

170

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Let us suppose that  is such that A is a bona fide operator in L 2 (Rd ); then, by the symmetry of , it follows easily that A is symmetric on Cc∞ (Rd ), with

E( f ) =  f, A f . We can now proceed as in Example 3.6.8 and utilise Theorem 3.8.10 to deduce that E is closable, Exercise 3.6.6 to show that it is Markovian and Theorem 3.6.7 to infer that E is indeed a Dirichlet form. We will now look at some conditions under which A operates in L 2 (Rd ). We impose a condition on  that is related to the L´evy kernel concept considered in Section 3.5. For each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) we require that the mapping



x→

Rd −{x}

|y − x|(x, y)dy

is in L 2 (Rd ). Using the mean value theorem, there exists 0 < θ < 1 such that, for all x ∈ Rd ,

  (A f )(x) ≤



Rd −{x}

 ≤

Rd −{x}

≤ d 1/2

  i   y − x i ∂i f (x + θ (y − x))(x, y)dy  1/2 d  2    y − x  ∂i f (x + θ (y − x)) (x, y)dy i=1

   max sup ∂i f (z)

1≤i≤n z∈R d

Rd −{x}

    y − x (x, y)dy ,

from which we easily deduce that ||A f ||2 < ∞, as required. Another condition is given in the following exercise. Exercise 3.6.10 Suppose that



 Rd

Rd

  (x, y)2 d yd x < ∞.

Deduce that ||A f ||2 < ∞ for each f ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). A generalisation of this example was studied by Ren´e Schilling in [279]. He investigated operators, of a similar type to A above, that are symmetric and satisfy the positive maximum principle. He was able to show that the closure of A is a Dirichlet operator, which then gives rise to a Dirichlet form by Theorem 3.6.1 (see Schilling [279], pp. 89–90).

3.6 Dirichlet forms

171

We also direct readers to the paper by Albeverio and Song [3], where general conditions for the closability of positive symmetric forms of jump type are investigated. 3.6.4 Dirichlet forms and Hunt processes Most of this subsection is based on Appendix A.2 of Fukushima et al. [112], pp. 310–31. We begin with the key definition. Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a homogeneous sub-Markov process defined on a probability space (
, F, P) and adapted to a right-continuous filtration (Ft , t ≥ 0). We will also require the augmented natural filtration (GtX , t ≥ 0). We say that X is a Hunt process if: (1) X is right-continuous; (2) X has the strong Markov property with respect to (GtX , t ≥ 0), i.e. given any GtX -adapted stopping time T ,

  

P X (T + s) ∈ B GtX = P X (s) ∈ B  X (T )

for all s ≥ 0, B ∈ B(Rd ); (3) X is quasi-left-continuous, i.e. if given any GtX -adapted stopping time T and any sequence of GtX -adapted stopping times (Tn , n ∈ N) that are increasing to T we have



P

 lim X (Tn ) = X (T ), T < ∞ = P(T < ∞).

n→∞

If the notion of Hunt process seems a little unfamiliar and obscure, the good news is: Theorem 3.6.11 Every sub-Feller process is a Hunt process. In particular, then, every L´evy process is a Hunt process. We now briefly summarise the connection between Hunt processes and Dirichlet forms. First suppose that X is a Hunt process with associated semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) and transition probabilities ( pt , t ≥ 0). We further assume that X is symmetric. It can then be shown (see Fukushima et al. [112], pp. 28–9) that there exists M ⊆ Bb (Rd ) ∩ L 1 (Rd ), with M dense in L 2 (Rd ), such that limt↓0 Rd f (y) pt (x, dy) = f (x) (a.e.) for all f ∈ M, x ∈ Rd . From this it follows that the semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) is strongly continuous. Now since X is symmetric, (Tt , t ≥ 0) is self-adjoint and hence we can associate a Dirichlet form E with X by Theorem 3.6.1.

172

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

We note two interesting consequences of this construction. • Every Lebesgue-symmetric Feller process induces a Dirichlet form in L 2 (Rd ). • Every Lebesgue-symmetic sub-Feller semigroup in C0 (Rd ) induces a selfadjoint sub-Markov semigroup in L 2 (Rd ). The converse, whereby a symmetric Hunt process is associated with an arbitrary regular Dirichlet form, is much deeper and goes beyond the scope of the present volume. The full story can be found in Chapter 7 of Fukushima et al. [112] but there is also a nice introduction in Chapter 3 of Jacob [148]. We give here the briefest of outlines. Let E be a regular Dirichlet form in L 2 (Rd ). By Theorem 3.6.1, we can associate a sub-Markov semigroup (Tt , t ≥ 0) to E. Formally, we can try to construct transition probabilities by the usual procedure pt (x, A) = (Tt χ A )(x) for all t ≥ 0, A ∈ B(Rd ) and (Lebesgue) almost all x ∈ Rd . The problem is that the Chapman–Kolmogorov equations are only valid on sets of ‘capacity zero’. It is only by systematically avoiding sets of non-zero capacity that we can associate a Hunt process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) with E. Even when such a process is constructed, the mapping x → E( f (X (t)|X (0) = x) for f ∈ Bb (Rd ) ∩ L 2 (Rd ) is only defined up to a ‘set of capacity zero’, and this causes difficulties in giving a sense to the uniqueness of X . For further discussion and also an account of the important notion of capacity, see Fukushima et al. [112], Jacob [148] and Ma and R¨ockner [204].

3.6.5 Non-symmetric Dirichlet forms The material in this subsection is mostly based on Ma and R¨ockner [204], but see also Chapter 3 of Jacob [148] and Section 4.7 of Jacob [149]). Let D be a dense domain in L 2 (Rd ). We want to consider bilinear forms E with domain D that are positive, i.e. E( f, f ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ D, but not necessarily symmetric. We introduce the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of E, which we denote as Es and Ea , respectively, for each f, g ∈ D, by

  Es ( f, g) = 12 E( f, g)+E(g, f ) and Ea ( f, g) = 12 E( f, g)−E(g, f ) . Note that E = Es + Ea and that Es is a positive symmetric bilinear form. In order to obtain a good theory of non-symmetric Dirichlet forms, we need to impose more structure than in the symmetric case.

3.6 Dirichlet forms

173

We recall (see Subsection 3.8.3) the inner product ·, ·E induced by E and given by

 f, gE =  f, g + E( f, g) for each f, g ∈ D. We say that E satisfies the weak-sector condition if there exists K > 0 such that, for each f, g ∈ D,

| f, gE | ≤ K || f || E ||g||E . Exercise 3.6.12 Show that if E satisfies the weak-sector condition then there exists K 1 ≥ 0 such that, for all f ∈ D,

 |E( f )| ≤ K 1 || f ||2 + Es ( f ) . A positive bilinear form E with dense domain D is termed coercive if: (1) Es is a closed symmetric form; (2) E satisfies the weak sector condition. A coercive form E with domain D is said to be a Dirichlet form if, for all f ∈ D, we have ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1 ∈ D and:
 (D1) E f + ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1, f − ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1 ≥ 0; (D2) E( f − ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1, f + ( f ∨ 0) ∧ 1) ≥ 0. We comment below on why there are two conditions of this type. Note however that if E is symmetric then both (D1) and (D2) coincide with the earlier definition (3.26). Many results of the symmetric case carry over to the more general formalism, but the development is more complicated. For example, Theorem 3.6.1 generalises as follows: Theorem 3.6.13 (1) (Tt , t ≥ 0) is a sub-Markovian semigroup in L 2 (Rd ) with generator A if and only if A is a Dirichlet operator. (2) If E is a coercive form with domain D, then there exists a Dirichlet operator A such that D = D A and E( f, g) = − f, Ag for all f, g ∈ D A if and only if E satisfies (D1). See Ma and R¨ockner [204], pp. 31–2, for a proof. You can clarify the relationship between (D1) and (D2) through the following exercise.

174

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Exercise 3.6.14 Let A be a closed operator in L 2 (Rd ) for which there exists a dense linear manifold D such that D ⊆ D A ∩ D A∗ . Define two bilinear forms E A and E A∗ with domain D by

E A∗ ( f, g) = − f, A∗ g.

E A ( f, g) = − f, Ag,

Deduce that E A satisfies (D1) if and only if E A∗ satisfies (D2). We can also associate Hunt processes with non-symmetric Dirichlet forms. This is again more complex than in the symmetric case and, in fact, we need to identify a special class of forms called quasi-regular from which processes can be constructed. The details can be found in Chapter 3 of Ma and R¨ockner [204]. There are many interesting examples of non-symmetric Dirichlet forms on both Rd and in infinite-dimensional settings, and readers can consult Chapter 2 of Ma and R¨ockner [204] for some of these. We will consider the case of a L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) with infinitesimal generator A and L´evy symbol η. We have already seen that if X is symmetric then it gives rise to the prototype symmetric Dirichlet form. Define a bilinear form E on the domain S(Rd ) by

E( f, g) = − f, Ag for all f, g ∈ S(Rd ). We will find that the relationship between L´evy processes and Dirichlet forms is not so clear cut as in the symmetric case. First, though, we need a preliminary result. Lemma 3.6.15 For all f, g ∈ S(Rd ),



Es ( f, g) = −

Rd

fˆ(u) (η(u)) g(u)du. ˆ

Proof For all f, g ∈ S(Rd ), by Theorem 3.3.3(2),

1 1 E( f, g) + E(g, f ) = −  f, Ag + g, A f  2 2

   1 ˆ ˆ =− f (u)η(u)g(u)du ˆ + g(u)η(u) ˆ f (u)du . 2 Rd Rd

Es ( f, g) =

In particular, we have



Es ( f ) = −  =−

Rd

Rd

| fˆ(u)|2 η(u)du | fˆ(u)|2 (η(u)) du − i

 Rd

| fˆ(u)|2 (η(u))du.

3.6 Dirichlet forms

175

However, A : S(Rd ) → C0 (Rd ) and hence Es ( f ) ∈ R, so we must have

2 ˆ Rd | f (u)| (η(u)) du = 0. The result then follows by polarisation. Exercise 3.6.16 Deduce that E is positive, i.e. that E( f ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ S(Rd ). The following result is based on Jacob [149], Example 4.7.32. Theorem 3.6.17 If E satisfies the weak-sector condition, then, for all u ∈ Rd , there exists C > 0 such that


  | η(u) | ≤ C 1 + (η(u) .

(3.31)

Proof Suppose that E satisfies the weak-sector condition; then, by Exercise 3.6.12, there exists K 1 > 0 such that |E( f )| ≤ K 1 [|| f ||2 + Es ( f )] for all f ∈ S(Rd ). Using Parseval’s identity and the result of Lemma 3.6.15, we thus obtain

   

Rd

   2  ˆ | f (u)| η(u)du  ≤ K 1

 Rd

1 + (η(u)) | fˆ(u)|2 du.

Hence

 Rd

| fˆ(u)|2 (η(u)) du

 ≤

K 12

Rd

2

 +

Rd

| fˆ(u)|2 (η(u)) du



1 + (η(u)) | fˆ(u)|2 du

2

2 .

We thus deduce that there exists C > 0 such that

   

    | fˆ(u)| (η(u)) du  ≤ C d 2

R

Rd



1 + (η(u)) | fˆ(u)|2 du,

from which the required result follows. Theorem 3.6.17 indicates that the theory of non-symmetric Dirichlet forms is not powerful enough to cover all L´evy processes: indeed, if we take X to be a ‘pure drift’ with characteristics (b, 0, 0) then it clearly fails to satisfy equation (3.31) and so cannot yield a Dirichlet form. In Jacob [149], Example 4.7.32, it is shown that the condition (3.31) is both necessary and sufficient for E to be a Dirichlet form. A result of similar type, but under slightly stronger hypotheses, was first established by Berg and Forst in [34].

176

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

3.7 Notes and further reading The general theory of Markov processes is a deep and extensive subject and we have only touched on the basics here. The classic text by Dynkin [86] is a fundamental and groundbreaking study. Indeed, Dynkin is one of the giants of the subject, and I also recommend the collection of his papers [87] for insight into his contribution. Another classic text for Markov process theory is Blumenthal and Getoor [51]. A more modern approach, which is closer to the themes of this book, is the oft-cited Ethier and Kurtz [99]. A classic resource for the analytic theory of semigroups is Hille and Phillips [129]. In fact the idea of studying semigroups of linear mappings in Banach spaces seems to be due to Hille [130]. It is not clear which author first realised that semigroups could be used as a tool to investigate Markov processes; however, the idea certainly seems to have been known to Feller in the 1950s (see Chapters 9 and 10 of [102]). The modern theory of Dirichlet forms originated with the work of Beurling and Deny [39, 40] and Deny [79] provides a very nice expository account from a potential-theoretic point of view. The application of these to construct Hunt processes was developed by Fukushima and is, as discussed above, described in Fukushima et al. [112]. The notion of a Hunt process is, of course, due to G.A. Hunt and can be found in [138]. 3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces In this section, we aim to give a primer on all the results about linear operators that are used in Chapter 3. In order to keep the book as self-contained as possible, we have included proofs of some key results; however, our account is, by its very nature, somewhat limited and those who require more sustenance should consult a dedicated book on functional analysis. Our major sources, at least for the first two subsections, are Chapter 8 of Reed and Simon [257] and Chapters 1 and 7 of Yosida [309]. The classic text by Kato [168] is also a wonderful resource. We assume a basic knowledge of Banach and Hilbert spaces. 3.8.1 Basic concepts: operators domains, closure, graphs, cores, resolvents Let B1 and B2 be Banach spaces over either R or C. An operator from B1 to B2 is a mapping T from a subset DT of B1 into B2 . We call DT the domain of T . T is said to be linear if DT is a linear space and

T (αψ1 + βψ2 ) = αT ψ1 + βT ψ2

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

177

for all ψ1 , ψ2 ∈ DT and all scalars α and β. Operators that fail to be linear are usually called non-linear. From now on, all our operators will be taken to be linear and we will take B1 = B2 = B to be a real Banach space, as this is usually sufficient in probability theory (although not in quantum probability, see e.g. Meyer [226] or Parthasarathy [249]). Readers can check that almost all ideas extend naturally to the more general case (although one needs to be careful with complex conjugates when considering adjoint operators in complex spaces). When considering the Fourier transform, in the final section, we will in fact need some spaces of complex functions, but these should present no difficulty to the reader. Linear operators from B to B are usually said to operate in B. The norm in B will always be denoted as || · ||. Let T1 and T2 be linear operators in B with domains DT1 and DT2 , respectively. We say that T2 is an extension of T1 if (1) DT1 ⊆ DT2 , (2) T1 ψ = T2 ψ for all ψ ∈ DT1 . We write T1 ⊆ T2 in this case. If T2 is an extension of T1 , we often call T1 the restriction of T2 to DT1 and write T1 = T2 | DT . 1 Linear operators can be added and composed so long as we take care with domains. Let S and T be operators in B with domains D S and DT , respectively. Then S + T is an operator with domain D S ∩ DT and

(S + T )ψ = Sψ + T ψ for all ψ ∈ D S ∩ DT . The composition ST has domain D ST = DT ∩ T −1 (D S ) and

(ST )ψ = S(T ψ), for all ψ ∈ D ST . Let T be a linear operator in B. It is said to be densely defined if its domain DT is dense in B. Note that even if S and T are both densely defined, S + T may not be. A linear operator T in B with domain DT is bounded if there exists K ≥ 0 such that

||T ψ|| ≤ K ||ψ|| for all ψ ∈ DT . Operators that fail to be bounded are often referred to as unbounded.

178

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Proposition 3.8.1 A densely defined bounded linear operator T in B has a unique bounded extension whose domain is the whole of B. Proof (Sketch) Let ψ ∈ B; then since DT is dense there exists (ψn , n ∈ N) in DT with limn→∞ ψn = ψ. Since T is bounded, we deduce easily that (T ψn , n ∈ N) is a Cauchy sequence in B and so converges to a vector φ ∈ B. Define an operator T˜ with domain B by the prescription

T˜ ψ = φ. Then it is easy to see that T˜ is linear and extends T . Moreover, T is bounded since

||T˜ ψ|| = ||φ|| = lim ||T ψn || ≤ K lim ||ψn || = K ||ψ||, n→∞

n→∞

where we have freely used the Banach-space inequality

|(||a|| − ||b||)| ≤ ||a − b|| for all a, b ∈ B. It is clear that T˜ is unique. In the light of Proposition 3.8.1, whenever we speak of a bounded operator in B, we will implicitly assume that its domain is the whole of B. Let T be a bounded linear operator in B. We define its norm ||T || by

||T || = sup{||T ψ||; ψ ∈ B, ||ψ|| = 1}; then the mapping T → ||T || really is a norm on the linear space L(B) of all bounded linear operators in B. L(B) is itself a Banach space (and in fact, a Banach algebra) with respect to this norm. A bounded operator T is said to be a contraction if ||T || ≤ 1 and an isometry if ||T || = 1 (the Itˆo stochastic integral as constructed in Chapter 4 is an example of an isometry between two Hilbert spaces). An operator T in B that is isometric and bijective is easily seen to have an isometric inverse. Such operators are called isometric isomorphisms. Proposition 3.8.2 A linear operator T in B is bounded if and only if it is continuous. Proof (Sketch) Suppose that T is bounded in B and let ψ ∈ B and (ψn , n ∈ N) be any sequence in B converging to ψ. Then by linearity

||T ψ − T ψn || ≤ ||T || ||ψ − ψn ||,

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

179

from which we deduce that (T ψn , n ∈ N) converges to T ψ and the result follows. Conversely, suppose that T is continuous but not bounded; then for each n ∈ N we can find ψn ∈ B with ||ψn || = 1 and ||T ψn || ≥ n. Now let φn = ψn /n; then limn→∞ φn = 0 but ||T φn || > 1 for each n ∈ N. Hence T is not continuous at the origin and we have obtained the desired contradiction.

For unbounded operators, the lack of continuity is somewhat alleviated if the operator is closed, which we may regard as a weak continuity property. Before defining this explicitly, we need another useful concept. Let T be an operator in B with domain DT . Its graph is the set G T ⊆ B × B defined by

G T = {(ψ, T ψ); ψ ∈ DT }. We say that T is closed if G T is closed in B×B. Clearly this is equivalent to the requirement that, for every sequence (ψn , n ∈ N) which converges to ψ ∈ B and for which (T ψn , n ∈ N) converges to φ ∈ B, ψ ∈ DT and φ = T ψ. If T is a closed linear operator then it is easy to check that its domain DT is itself a Banach space with respect to the graph norm |||·||| where

|||ψ||| = ||ψ|| + ||T ψ|| for each ψ ∈ DT . In many situations, a linear operator only fails to be closed because its domain is too small. To accommodate this we say that a linear operator T in B is closable if it has a closed extension T˜ . Clearly T is closable if and only if there exists a closed operator T˜ for which G T ⊆ G T˜ . Note that there is no reason why T˜ should be unique, and we define the closure T of a closable T to be its smallest closed extension, so that T is the closure of T if and only if the following hold: (1) T is a closed extension of T ; (2) if T˜ is any other closed extension of T then DT ⊆ DT˜ . The next theorem gives a useful practical criterion for establishing closability. Theorem 3.8.3 A linear operator T in B with domain DT is closable if and only if for every sequence (ψn , n ∈ N) in DT which converges to 0 and for which (T ψn , n ∈ N) converges to some φ ∈ B, we always have φ = 0.

180

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Proof If T is closable then the result is immediate from the definition. Conversely, let (x, y1 ) and (x, y2 ) be two points in G T . Our first task is to show that we always have y1 = y2 . Let (xn1 , n ∈ N) and (xn2 , n ∈ N) be two sequences in DT that converge to x; then (xn1 − xn2 , n ∈ N) converges to 0 and (T xn1 − T xn2 , n ∈ N) converges to y1 − y2 . Hence y1 = y2 by the criterion. From now on, we write y = y1 = y2 and define T1 x = y. Then T1 is a well-defined linear operator with DT1 = {x ∈ B; there exists y ∈ B such that (x, y) ∈ G T }. Clearly T1 extends T and by construction we have G T1 = G T , so that T1 is minimal, as required. From the proof of Theorem 3.8.3, we see that a linear operator T is closable if and only if

GT = GT . Having dealt with the case where the domain is too small, we should also consider the case where we know that an operator T is closed, but the domain is too large or complicated for us to work in it with ease. In that case it is very useful to have a core available. Let T be a closed linear operator in B with domain DT . A linear subspace C of DT is a core for T if

T |C = T, i.e. given any ψ ∈ DT , there exists a sequence (ψn , n ∈ N) in C such that limn→∞ ψn = ψ and limn→∞ T ψn = T ψ. Example 3.8.4 Let B = C0 (R) and define

DT = { f ∈ C0 (R); f is differentiable and f ∈ C0 (R)} and

Tf = f for all f ∈ DT ; then T is closed and Cc∞ (R) is a core for T . The final concept we need in this subsection is that of a resolvent. Let T be a linear operator in B with domain DT . Its resolvent set ρ(T ) = {λ ∈ C; λI − T is invertible}. The spectrum of T is the set σ (T ) = ρ(T )c . Note that every eigenvalue of T is an element of σ (T ). If λ ∈ ρ(T ), the linear operator Rλ (T ) = (λI − T )−1 is called the resolvent of T .

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

181

Proposition 3.8.5 If T is a closed linear operator in B with domain DT and resolvent set ρ(T ), then, for all λ ∈ ρ(T ), Rλ (T ) is a bounded operator from B into DT . Proof We will need the inverse mapping theorem, which states that a continuous bijection between two Banach spaces always has a continuous inverse (see e.g. Reed and Simon [257], p. 83). Now since T is closed, DT is a Banach space under the graph norm and we find that for each λ ∈ ρ(T ), ψ ∈ DT ,

||(λI − T )ψ|| ≤ |λ| ||ψ|| + ||T ψ|| ≤ max{1, |λ|} |||ψ|||. So λI − T is bounded and hence continuous (by Proposition 3.8.2) from DT to B. The result then follows by the inverse mapping theorem.

3.8.2 Dual and adjoint operators – self-adjointness Let B be a real Banach space and recall that its dual space B ∗ is the linear space comprising all continuous linear functionals from B to R. The space B ∗ is itself a Banach space with respect to the norm

||l|| = sup{|l(x)|; ||x|| = 1}. Now let T be a densely defined linear operator in B with domain DT . We define the dual operator T c of T to be the linear operator in B ∗ with DT c = {l ∈ B ∗ ; l ◦ T ∈ B ∗ } and for which

T cl = l ◦ T for each l ∈ DT c , so that T c l(ψ) = l(T (ψ)) for each l ∈ DT c , ψ ∈ DT . One of the most important classes of dual operators occurs when B is a Hilbert space with inner product ·, ·. In this case the Riesz representation theorem ensures that B and B ∗ are isometrically isomorphic and that every l ∈ B ∗ is of the form lψ for some ψ ∈ B, where lψ (φ) = ψ, φ for each ψ ∈ B. We may then define the adjoint operator T ∗ of T with domain DT ∗ = {ψ ∈ B; lψ ∈ DT c } by the prescription T ∗ ψ = T c (lψ ) for each ψ ∈ DT ∗ . If S and T are both linear operators in a Hilbert space B, and α ∈ R, we have

(S + αT )∗ ⊆ S ∗ + αT ∗ ,

(ST )∗ ⊆ T ∗ S ∗ ,

Note that T ∗∗ = (T ∗ )∗ is an extension of T . The following result is very useful.

if S ⊆ T then T ∗ ⊆ S ∗ .

182

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Theorem 3.8.6 Let T be a linear operator in a Hilbert space B. Then (1) T ∗ is closed, (2) T is closable if and only if T ∗ is densely defined, in which case we have T = T ∗∗ , (3) if T is closable then (T )∗ = T ∗ . Proof See Reed and Simon [257], pp. 252–3, or Yosida [309], p. 196. In applications, we frequently encounter linear operators T that satisfy the condition

ψ1 , T ψ2  = T ψ1 , ψ2  for all ψ1 , ψ2 ∈ DT . Such operators are said to be symmetric and the above condition is clearly equivalent to the requirement that T ⊆ T ∗ . Note that if T is densely defined and symmetric then it is closable by Theorem 3.8.6(2) and we can further deduce that T ⊆ T ∗∗ ⊆ T ∗ . We often require more than this, and a linear operator is said to be selfadjoint if T = T ∗ . We emphasise that for T to be self-adjoint we must have DT = DT ∗ . The problem of extending a given symmetric operator to be self-adjoint is sometimes fraught with difficulty. In particular, a given symmetric operator may have many distinct self-adjoint extensions; see e.g. Reed and Simon [257], pp. 257–9. We say that a symmetric operator is essentially self-adjoint if it has a unique self-adjoint extension. Proposition 3.8.7 A symmetric operator T in a Hilbert space B is essentially self-adjoint if and only if T = T ∗ . Proof We prove only sufficiency here. To establish this, observe that if S is another self-adjoint extension of T then T ⊆ S and so, on taking adjoints, ∗

S = S ∗ ⊆ T = T ∗∗ = T . Hence S = T . Readers should be warned that for a linear operator T to be closed and symmetric does not imply that it is essentially self-adjoint. Of course, if T is bounded then it is self-adjoint if and only if it is symmetric. The simplest example of a bounded self-adjoint operator is a projection. This is a linear self-adjoint operator P that is also idempotent, in that P 2 = P. In fact any

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

183

self-adjoint operator can be built in a natural way from projections. To see this, we need the idea of a projection-valued measure. This is a family of projections {P(A), A ∈ B(R)} that satisfies the following: (1) P(∅) = 0, P(R) = 1; (2) P(A1 ∩ A2 ) = P(A1 )P(A2 ) for all A1 , A2 ∈ B(R); (3) if (An , n ∈ N) is a Borel partition of A ∈ B(R) then

P(A)ψ =

∞ 

P(An )ψ

n=1

for all ψ ∈ B. For each φ, ψ ∈ B, a projection-valued measure gives rise to a finite measure µφ,ψ on B(R) via the prescription µφ,ψ (A) = φ, P(A)ψ for each A ∈ B(R). Theorem 3.8.8 (The spectral theorem) If T is a self-adjoint operator in a Hilbert space B, then there exists a projection-valued measure {P(A), A ∈ B(R)} in B such that for all f ∈ B, g ∈ DT ,



φ, T ψ = We write this symbolically as

R

λµφ,ψ (dλ).



T =

R

λP(dλ).

Note that the support of the measure µφ,φ for each φ ∈ DT is σ (T ), the spectrum of T . Spectral theory allows us to develop a functional calculus for self-adjoint operators; specifically, if f is a Borel function from R to R then f (T ) is again self-adjoint, where



f (T ) =

R

f (λ)P(dλ).

Note that || f (T )ψ||2 = R | f (λ)|2 ||P(dλ)ψ||2 for all ψ ∈ D f (T ) . A self-adjoint operator T is said to be positive if  f, T f  ≥ 0 for all f ∈ DT . We have that T is positive if and only if σ (T ) ⊆ [0, ∞). It is easily verified that a bounded linear operator T in a Hilbert space B is isometric if and only if T ∗ T = I . We say that T is a co-isometry if T T ∗ = I and unitary if it is isometric and co-isometric. T is an isometric isomorphism of B if and only if it is unitary, and in this case we have T −1 = T ∗ .

184

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

3.8.3 Closed symmetric forms A useful reference for this subsection is Chapter 1 of Bouleau and Hirsch [55]. Let B be a real Hilbert space and suppose that D is a dense linear subspace of B. A closed symmetric form in B is a bilinear map E : D × D → R such that: (1) E is symmetric, i.e. E( f, g) = E(g, f ) for all f, g ∈ D; (2) E is positive, i.e. E( f, f ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ D; (3) D is a real Hilbert space with respect to the inner product ·, ·E , where, for each f, g ∈ D,

 f, gE =  f, g + E( f, g). With respect to the inner product in (3), we have the associated norm 1/2 || · ||E = ·, ·E . For each f ∈ D, we write E( f ) = E( f, f ) and note that E(·) determines E(·, ·) by polarisation. An important class of closed symmetric forms is generated as follows. Let T be a positive self-adjoint operator in B; then, by the spectral theorem, we can obtain its square root T 1/2 , which is also a positive self-adjoint operator in B. We have DT ⊆ DT 1/2 since, for all f ∈ DT ,

||T 1/2 f ||2 =  f, T f  ≤ || f || ||T f ||. Now take D = DT 1/2 ; then E( f ) = ||T 1/2 f ||2 is a closed symmetric form. Indeed (3) above is just the statement that DT 1/2 is complete with respect to the graph norm. Suppose that E is a closed symmetric form in B with domain D. Then we can define a positive self-adjoint operator A in B by the prescription

D A = { f ∈ D, ∃g ∈ B such that E( f, h) = (g, h), ∀h ∈ D}, Af = g

for all

f ∈ DA.

Our conclusion from the above discussion is Theorem 3.8.9 There is a one-to-one correspondence between closed symmetric forms in B and positive self-adjoint operators in B. Sometimes we need a weaker concept than the closed symmetric form. Let E be a positive symmetric bilinear form on B with domain D. We say that it is closable if there exists a closed form E1 with domain D1 that extends E, in the sense that D ⊆ D1 and E( f ) = E1 ( f ) whenever f ∈ D. Just as in the case of closable operators, we can show that a closable E has a smallest closed

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

185

extension, which we call the closure of E and denote as E. We always write its domain as D. Here are some useful practical techniques for proving that a form is closable. • A necessary and sufficient condition for a positive symmetric bilinear form to be closable is that for every sequence ( f n , n ∈ N) in D for which limn→∞ f n = 0 and limm,n→∞ E( f n − f m ) = 0 we have limn→∞ E( f n ) = 0. • A sufficient condition for a positive symmetric bilinear form to be closable is that for every sequence ( f n , n ∈ N) in D for which limn→∞ f n = 0 we have limn→∞ E( f n , g) = 0 for every g ∈ D. The following result is useful in applications. Theorem 3.8.10 Let T be a densely defined symmetric positive operator in B, so that  f, T f  ≥ 0 for all f ∈ DT . Define a form E by D = DT and E( f ) =  f, T f  for all f ∈ D. Then: (1) E is closable; (2) there exists a positive self-adjoint operator TF that extends T such that E( f ) =  f, TF f  for all f ∈ D. The operator TF of Theorem 3.8.10 is called the Friedrichs extension of T . 3.8.4 The Fourier transform and pseudo-differential operators The material in the first part of this section is largely based on Rudin [267]. Let f ∈ L 1 (Rd , C); then its Fourier transform is the mapping fˆ, defined by

fˆ(u) = (2π )−d/2



Rd

e−i(u,x) f (x)d x

(3.32)

for all u ∈ Rd . If we define F( f ) = fˆ then F is a linear mapping from L 1 (Rd , C) to the space of all continuous complex-valued functions on Rd called the Fourier transformation. We introduce two important families of linear operators in L 1 (Rd , C), translations (τx , x ∈ Rd ) and phase multiplications (ex , x ∈ Rd ), by

(τx f )(y) = f (y − x), for each f ∈ L 1 (Rd , C) and x, y ∈ Rd .

(ex f )(y) = ei(x,y) f (y)

186

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

It is easy to show that each of τx and ex are isometric isomorphisms of L 1 (Rd , C). Two key, easily verified, properties of the Fourier transform are

ˆ τ x f = e−x f

ˆ e x f = τx f

and

(3.33)

for each x ∈ Rd . Furthermore, if we define the convolution f ∗ g of f, g ∈ L 1 (Rd , C) by −d/2



( f ∗ g)(x) = (2π )

Rd

f (x − y)g(y)dy

for each x ∈ Rd , then we have (
f ∗ g) = fˆg. ˆ d If µ is a finite measure on R , we can define its Fourier transform by −d/2



µ(u) ˆ = (2π )

Rd

e−i(u,x) µ(d x)

for each u ∈ Rd , and µˆ is then a continuous positive definite mapping from Rd to C. The convolution f ∗ µ, for f ∈ L 1 (Rd , C) ∩ C0 (Rd , C), is defined by −d/2



( f ∗ µ)(x) = (2π )

Rd

f (x − y)µ(dy),

and we have again that (
f ∗ µ) = fˆµ. ˆ Valuable information about the range of F is given by the following key theorem. Theorem 3.8.11 (Riemann–Lebesgue lemma) If f ∈ L 1 (Rd , C) then fˆ ∈ C0 (Rd , C) and || fˆ||0 ≤ || f ||1 . If f ∈ L 2 (Rd , C), we can also define its Fourier transform as in (3.32). It then transpires that F : L 2 (Rd , C) → L 2 (Rd , C) is a unitary operator. The fact that F is isometric is sometimes expressed by Theorem 3.8.12 (Plancherel) If f ∈ L 2 (Rd , C) then





Rd

| f (x)|2 d x =

Rd

| fˆ(u)|2 du;

or Theorem 3.8.13 (Parseval) If f, g ∈ L 2 (Rd , C) then



Rd



f (x)g(x)d x =

Rd

fˆ(u)g(u)du. ˆ

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

187

Although, as we have seen, F has nice properties in both L 1 and L 2 , perhaps the most natural context in which to discuss it is the Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing functions. These are smooth functions such that they, and all their derivatives, decay to zero at infinity faster than any negative power of |x|. To make this precise, we first need some standard notation for partial differential operators. Let α = (α1 , . . . , αd ) be a multi-index, so that α ∈ (N ∪ {0})d . We define |α| = α1 + · · · + αd and

Dα =

1 ∂ α1 ∂ αd · · · . α i |α| ∂ x1 1 ∂ xdαd

Similarly, if x = (x1 , . . . , xd ) ∈ Rd then x α = x1α1 · · · xdαd . Now we define Schwartz space S(Rd , C) to be the linear space of all f ∈ ∞ C (Rd , C) for which

sup |x β D α f (x)| < ∞

x∈R d

for all multi-indices α and β. Note that Cc∞ (Rd , C) ⊂ S(Rd , C) and that the ‘Gaussian function’ x → exp(−x 2 ) is in S(Rd , C). The space S(Rd , C) is dense in C0 (Rd , C) and in L p (Rd , C) for all 1 ≤ p < ∞. These statements remain true when C is replaced by R. The space S(Rd , C) is a Fr´echet space with respect to the family of norms {||.|| N , N ∈ N ∪ {0}}, where for each f ∈ S(Rd , C)

|| f || N = max sup (1 + |x|2 ) N |D α f (x)|. |α|≤N x∈R d

The dual of S(Rd , C) with this topology is the space S (Rd , C) of tempered distributions. The operator F is a continuous bijection of S(Rd , C) into itself with a continuous inverse, and we have the following important result. Theorem 3.8.14 (Fourier inversion) If f ∈ S(Rd , C) then

f (x) = (2π )−d/2



Rd

fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du.

In the final part of this subsection, we show how the Fourier transform allows us to build pseudo-differential operators. We begin by examining the Fourier transform of differential operators. More or less everything flows from the following simple fact:

D α ei(u,x) = u α ei(u,x) , for each x, u ∈ Rd and each multi-index α.

188

Markov processes, semigroups and generators

Using Fourier inversion and dominated convergence, we then find that

(D α f )(x) = (2π )−d/2

 Rd

u α fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du

for all f ∈ S(Rd , C), x ∈ Rd .  If p is a polynomial in u of the form p(u) = |α|≤k cα u α , where k ∈ N and each cα ∈ C, we can form the associated differential operator P(D) =  α |α|≤k cα D and, by linearity,

(P(D) f )(x) = (2π )−d/2

 Rd

p(u) fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du.

The next step is to employ variable coefficients. If each cα ∈ C ∞ (Rd ),  for example, we may define p(x, u) = |α|≤k cα (x)u α and P(x, D) =  α |α|≤k cα (x)D . We then find that

(P(x, D) f )(x) = (2π )−d/2

 Rd

p(x, u) fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du.

The passage from D to P(x, D) has been rather straightforward, but now we will take a leap into the unknown and abandon formal notions of differentiation. So we replace p by a more general function σ : Rd × Rd → C. Informally, we may then define a pseudo-differential operator σ (x, D) by the prescription: −d/2

(σ (x, D) f )(x) = (2π )

 Rd

σ (x, u) fˆ(u)ei(u,x) du,

and σ is then called the symbol of this operator. Of course we have been somewhat cavalier here, and we should make some further assumptions on the symbol σ to ensure that σ (x, D) really is a bona fide operator. There are various classes of symbols that may be defined to achieve this. One of the most useful m . This is defined to be the set of all σ ∈ C ∞ (Rd ) is the H¨ormander class Sρ,δ such that, for each multi-index α and β,

|Dxα Duβ σ (x, u)| ≤ Cα,β (1 + |u|2 )(m−ρ|α|+δ|β|)/2 for each x, u ∈ Rd , where Cα,β > 0, m ∈ R and ρ, δ ∈ [0, 1]. In this case σ (x, D) : S(Rd , C) → S(Rd , C) and extends to an operator S (Rd , C) → S (Rd , C).

3.8 Appendix: Unbounded operators in Banach spaces

189

For those who hanker after operators in Banach spaces, note the following: • if ρ > 0 and m < −d + ρ(d − 1) then σ (x, D) : L p (Rd , C) → L p (Rd , C) for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞; • if m = 0 and 0 ≤ δ < ρ ≤ 1 then σ (x, D) : L 2 (Rd , C) → L 2 (Rd , C). Proofs of these and more general results can be found in Taylor [295]. However, note that this book, like most on the subject, is written from the point of view of partial differential equations, where it is natural for the symbol to be smooth in both variables. For applications to Markov processes this is too restrictive, and we usually impose much weaker requirements on the dependence of σ in the x-variable. A systematic treatment of these can be found in Section 2.3 of Jacob [150].

4 Stochastic integration

Summary We will now study the stochastic integration of predictable processes against martingale-valued measures. Important examples are the Brownian, Poisson and L´evy-type cases. In the case where the integrand is a sure function, we investigate the associated Wiener–L´evy integrals, particularly the important example of the Ornstein– Uhlenbeck process and its relationship with self-decomposable random variables. In Section 4.4, we establish Itˆo’s formula, which is one of the most important results in this book. Immediate spin-offs from this are L´evy’s characterisation of Brownian motion and Burkholder’s inequality. We also introduce the Stratonovitch, Marcus and backwards stochastic integrals and indicate the role of local time in extending Itˆo’s formula beyond the class of twice-differentiable functions.

4.1 Integrators and integrands In Section 2.6 we identified the need to develop a theory of integration against martingales that is not based on the usual Stieltjes integral. Given that our aim is to study stochastic differential equations driven by L´evy processes, our experience with Poisson integrals suggests that it might be profitable to integrate against a class of real-valued martingale-valued measures M defined on R+ × E, where E ∈ B(Rd ). At this stage, readers should recall the definition of martingale-valued measure from Subsection 2.3.1. We will frequently employ the notation

M((s, t], A) = M(t, A) − M(s, A) for all 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, A ∈ B(E). In order to get a workable stochastic integration theory, we will need to impose some conditions on M. These are as follows:

190

4.1 Integrators and integrands

191

(M1) M({0}, A) = 0 (a.s.); (M2) M((s, t], A) is independent of Fs ; (M3) there exists a σ -finite measure ρ on R+ × E for which

E(M(t, A)2 ) = ρ(t, A) for all 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, A ∈ B(E). Here we have introduced the abbreviated notation ρ(t, A) = ρ((0, t] × A). Martingale-valued measures satisfying (M1) to (M3) are said to be of type (2, ρ), as the second moment always exists and can be expressed in terms of the measure ρ. In all the examples that we will consider, ρ will be a product measure taking the form

ρ((0, t] × A) = tµ(A) for each t ≥ 0, A ∈ B(E), where µ is a σ -finite measure on E, and we will assume that this is the case from now
on.  By Theorem 2.2.3, we see that E M(t, A), M(t, A) = ρ(t, A) provided ρ(t, A) < ∞. A martingale-valued measure is said to be continuous if the sample paths t → M(t, A)(ω) are continuous for almost all ω ∈  and all A ∈ B(E). Example 4.1.1 (L´evy martingale-valued measures) Let X be a L´evy process with L´evy–Itˆo decomposition given by (2.25) and take E = Bˆ − {0}, where we recall that Bˆ = {x ∈ Rd , |x| < 1}. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ d, A ∈ B(E), define j Mi (t, A) = α N˜ (t, A − {0}) + βσi B j (t)δ0 (A),

where α, β ∈ R are fixed and σ σ T = a. Then each Mi is a real-valued martingale-valued measure and we have

  ρi (t, A) = t α 2 ν(A − {0}) + β 2 aii δ0 (A) .

Note that ρi (t, A) < ∞ whenever A − {0} is bounded below. In most of the applications that we consider henceforth, we will have (α, β) = (1, 0) or (0, 1). Example 4.1.2 (Gaussian space–time white noise) Although we will not use them directly in this book, we will briefly give an example of a class of martingale-valued measures that do not arise from L´evy processes. Let (S, , µ) be a measure space; then a Gaussian space–time white noise is a random measure W on (S × R+ × , ⊗ B(R+ ) ⊗ F) for which:

192

Stochastic integration

(1) W (A) and W (B) are independent whenever A and B are disjoint sets in B(R+ ) ⊗ F; (2) each W (A) is a centred Gaussian random variable. For each t ≥ 0, A ∈ , we can consider the process (W A (t), t ≥ 0) where W A (t) = W (A × [0, t]) and this is clearly a martingale-valued measure. In concrete applications, we may want to impose the requirements (M1)–(M3) above. The simplest non-trivial example of a space–time white noise is a Brownian sheet, for which S = (R+ )d and is its Borel σ -algebra. Writing Wt = W ([0, t1 ] × [0, t2 ] × · · · × [0, td+1 ]), for each t = (t1 , t2 , . . . , td+1 ) ∈ (R+ )d+1 , the Brownian sheet is defined to be a Gaussian white noise with covariance structure

E(Wt Ws ) = (s1 ∧ t1 )(s2 ∧ t2 ) · · · (sd+1 ∧ td+1 ). For further details and properties see Walsh [299], pp. 269–71. Some examples of non-Gaussian white noises, that are generalisations of L´evy processes, can be found in Applebaum and Wu [9]. Now we will consider the appropriate space of integrands. First we need to consider a generalisation of the notion of predictability, which was introduced earlier in Subsection 2.2.1. Fix E ∈ B(Rd ) and 0 < T < ∞ and let P denote the smallest σ -algebra with respect to which all mappings F : [0, T ] × E ×  → R satisfying (1) and (2) below are measurable: (1) for each 0 ≤ t ≤ T the mapping (x, ω) → F(t, x, ω) is B(E) ⊗ Ft measurable; (2) For each x ∈ E, ω ∈ , the mapping t → F(t, x, ω) is left-continuous. We call P the predictable σ -algebra. A P-measurable mapping G : [0, T ] × E ×  → R is then said to be predictable. Clearly the definition extends naturally to the case where [0, T ] is replaced by R+ . Note that, by (1), if G is predictable then the process t → G(t, x, ·) is adapted, for each x ∈ E. If G satisfies (1) and is left-continuous then it is clearly predictable. As the theory of stochastic integration unfolds below, we will see more clearly why the notion of predictability is essential. Some interesting observations about predictability are collected in Klebaner [170], pp. 214–15. Now let M be a (2, ρ)-type martingale-valued measure. We also fix T > 0 and define H2 (T, E) to be the linear space of all equivalence classes of mappings F : [0, T ]× E × → R which coincide almost everywhere with respect to ρ × P and which satisfy the following conditions:

4.1 Integrators and integrands

193

• F is predictable;  T • E(|F(t, x)|2 ) ρ(dt, d x) < ∞. 0

E

We may now define the inner product ·, ·T,ρ on H2 (T, E) by





T

F, GT,ρ =

E((F(t, x), G(t, x))) ρ(dt, d x) 0

E

for each F, G ∈ H2 (T, E), and we obtain a norm ||·||T,ρ in the usual way. Note that by Fubini’s theorem we may also write

 ||F||2T,ρ

T





=E

|F(t, x)| ρ(dt, d x) . 2

0

E

Lemma 4.1.3 H2 (T, E) is a real Hilbert space. Proof Clearly H2 (T, E) is a subspace of L 2 ([0, T ) × E × , ρ × P)). We need only prove that it is closed and the result follows. Let (Fn , n ∈ N) be a sequence in H2 (T, E) converging to F ∈ L 2 . It follows by the Chebyshev– Markov inequality that (Fn , n ∈ N) converges to F in measure, with respect to ρ × P, and hence (see e.g. Cohn [73], p. 86) there is a subsequence that converges to F almost everywhere. Since the subsequence comprises predictable mappings it follows that F is also predictable, hence F ∈ H2 (T, E) and we are done. Recall that ρ is always of the form ρ(d x, dt) = µ(d x)dt. In the case where E = {0} and µ({0}) = 1, we write H2 (T, E) = H2 (T ). The norm in H2 (T ) is given by

 ||F||2T



T

=E

|F(t)| dt . 2

0

For the general case, we have the natural (i.e. basis-independent) Hilbert-space isomorphisms

H2 (T, E) ∼ = L 2 (E, µ; H2 (T )) ∼ = L 2 (E, µ) ⊗ H2 (T ), where ⊗ denotes the Hilbert space tensor product (see e.g. Reed and Simon [257], pp. 49–53), and ∼ = means ‘is isomorphic to’. Define S(T, E) to be the linear space of all simple processes in H2 (T, E) where F is simple if, for some m, n ∈ N, there exists 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ · · · ≤ tm+1 = T and disjoint Borel subsets A1 , A2 , . . . , An of E with each µ(Ai )
0, there exists n 0 ∈ N such that



(l × P)







(t, ω); |Fn (t, ω) − F(t, ω)| > 

∈Q ∩R + n 0 ∈N n≥n 0



= (l × P)





(t, ω); |F(t, ω)| ≥ n



n 0 ∈N n≥n 0

≤

∞ 

(ρ × P)(|F(t, ω)| ≥ n) ≤

n=n 0

∞  ||F||2T < δ, n2 n=n 0

where we have used the Chebyshev–Markov inequality. By dominated convergence, we obtain

lim ||Fn − F||T = 0.

n→∞



4.1 Integrators and integrands

195

Step 2 (Approximation by step functions on [0, T ]) Let F ∈ H2 (T ) be bounded as above. Define

Fn (t, ω) = 2 T n

−1

n −1 2





2−n kT

2−n (k−1)T

k=1

F(s, ω)ds χ{2−n kT 0}, where Oa,F equals



 T 



G ∈ P2 (T, E); P

|G(t, x) − F(t, x)| ρ(dt, dx) < a 2

0

 =1 .

E

We have a good notion of convergence for sequences in P2 (T, E), i.e. (Fn , n ∈ N) converges to F if

 P



T

 |Fn (t, x) − F(t, x)| ρ(dt, d x) = 0 = 1.



2

lim

n→∞

E

0

Exercise 4.2.7 Imitate the argument in the proof of Lemma 4.1.4 to show that S(T, E) is dense in P2 (T, E). Lemma 4.2.8 (cf. Gihman and Skorohod [118], p. 20) If F ∈ S(T, E) then for all C, K ≥ 0

    F(t, x)M(dt, d x) > C E 0  T   K |F(t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x) > K . ≤ 2+P C 0 E

  P 

T



Proof Fix K > 0 and define F˜ K by

F˜ pK (t j ) =

  F p (t j )

if

0

otherwise.

 j, p i,l=1

Fl (ti )2 ρ((ti , ti+1 ], Al ) ≤ K ,

202

Stochastic integration

Then F˜ K ∈ S(T, E) and



T



0

| F˜ K (t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x) = E

mK  nK 

Fl (ti )2 ρ((ti , ti+1 ], Al ),

i=1 l=1

where m K and n K are the largest integers for which mK  nK 

Fl (ti )2 ρ((ti , ti+1 ], Ai ) ≤ K .

i=1 l=1

By definition, we have

F = F˜ K



T

 |F(t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x) ≤ K ;

if and only if 0

E

then, by the Chebychev–Markov inequality,

  P 

    F(t, x)M(dt, d x) > C 0 E    T      ˜ F(t, x)M(dt, d x) > C, F = FK =P  0 E         ˜ +P  F(t, x)M(dt, d x) > C, F =  FK T



  ≤ P 

0,T

T 0



E

E

    ˜ FK (t, x)M(dt, d x) > C + P(F = F˜ K )

 T   E(IT ( F˜ K ) ) 2 +P |F(t, x)| ρ(dt, d x) > K ≤ C2 0 E  T   K |F(t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x) > K , ≤ 2+P C E 0 2

as required. Now let F ∈ P2 (T, E); then by Exercise 4.2.7 we can find (Fn , n ∈ N) in S(T, E) such that limn→∞ α(F)n = 0 (a.s.), where for each n ∈ N T  α(F)n = 0 E |F(t, x) − Fn (t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x). Hence limn→∞ α(F)n = 0 in probability and so (α(F)n , n ∈ N) is a Cauchy sequence in probability. By Lemma 4.2.8, for any m, n ∈ N, K , β > 0,

    Fn (t, x) − Fm (t, x) M(dt, d x) > β E 0  T   K |Fn (t, x) − Fm (t, x)|2 ρ(dt, dx)> K . ≤ 2+P β 0 E

  P 

T







(4.2)

4.2 Stochastic integration

203

Hence, for any γ > 0, given  > 0 we can find m 0 ∈ N such that whenever n, m > m 0



T



 |Fn (t, x) − Fm (t, x)| ρ(dt, d x) > γβ 2

P

2

< .

E

0

Now choose K = γβ 2 in (4.2) to deduce that the sequence





 Fn (t, x)M(dt, d x), n ∈ N 0,T

E

is Cauchy in probability and thus has a unique limit in probability (up to almost-sure agreement). We denote this limit by

IˆT (F) =



T

 F(t, x)M(dt, d x),

0

E

so that

T 

T  F(t, x)M(dt, d x) = lim

Fn (t, x)M(dt, d x) in probability.

n→∞

0 E

0 E

We call IˆT (F) an (extended) stochastic integral and drop the qualifier ‘extended’ when the context is clear. We can again consider (extended) stochastic integrals as stochastic processes ( Iˆt (F), t ≥ 0), provided that we impose the condition

 t 

 |F(t, x)|2 ρ(dt, d x) < ∞ = 1

P 0

E

for all t ≥ 0. Exercise 4.2.9 Show that (1) and (3) of Theorem 4.2.3 continue to hold for extended stochastic integrals. Exercise 4.2.10 Extend the result of Lemma 4.2.8 to arbitrary F ∈ P2 (T, E). Exercise 4.2.11 Let Y be an adapted c`adl`ag process on [0, T ] and let F ∈ P2 (T, E). Confirm that the mapping (s, x, ·) → Y (s−)(·)F(s, x)(·) is in P2 (T, E). Of course we cannot expect the processes ( Iˆt (F), t ≥ 0) to be martingales in general, but we have the following:

204

Stochastic integration

Theorem 4.2.12 (1) ( Iˆt (F), t ≥ 0) is a local martingale. (2) ( Iˆt (F), t ≥ 0) has a c`adl`ag modification. Proof (1) Define a sequence of stopping times (Tn , n ∈ N) by:





 t

Tn (ω) = inf t ≥ 0;

|F(t, x)(ω)| ρ(dt, d x) > n 2

0

E

for all ω ∈ , n ∈ N. Then limn→∞ Tn = ∞ (a.s.). Define Fn (t, x) = F(t, x)χ{Tn ≥t} for all x ∈ E, t ≥ 0, n ∈ N; then

 t |Fn (t, x)(ω)|2 ρ(dt, d x) ≤ n, 0

E

hence Fn ∈ H2 (t, E) for all t ≥ 0. By Theorem 4.2.3(4), each ( Iˆt (Fn ), t ≥ 0) is an L 2 -martingale, but Iˆt (Fn ) = Iˆt∧Tn (F) and so we have our required result. (2) Since (Tn , n ∈ N) is increasing, for each ω ∈  we can find n 0 (ω) ∈ N such that t0 = t0 ∧ Tn 0 (ω). But by Theorem 4.2.3 each ( Iˆt∧Tn (F), t ≥ 0) is a martingale and so has a c`adl`ag modification by Theorem 2.1.6, and the required result follows. We finish this section by looking at the special case when our martingalevalued measure is continuous. Exercise 4.2.13 Show that if M is continuous then Iˆt (F) is continuous at each 0 ≤ t ≤ T , when F ∈ S(T, E). Theorem 4.2.14 If M is continuous and F ∈ P2 (T, E), then Iˆt (F) is continuous on [0, T ]. Proof First we consider the case where F ∈ H2 (T, E). Let (Fn , n ∈ N) be a sequence in S(T, E) converging to F; then by the Chebyshev–Markov inequality and Doob’s martingale inequality we have, for each  > 0,



P



sup |It (Fn ) − It (F)| >  0≤t≤T

  1 2 ≤ 2 E sup |It (Fn ) − It (F)|  0≤t≤T 4 ≤ 2 E(|IT (Fn ) − IT (F)|2 )  → 0 as n → ∞.

4.3 Stochastic integrals based on L´evy processes

205

Hence we can find a subsequence (Fn k , n k ∈ N) such that

lim sup |It (Fn k ) − It (F)| = 0

n k →∞ 0≤t≤T

a.s.,

and the required continuity follows from the result of Exercise 4.2.13 by an /3 argument. The extension to P2 (T, E) follows by the stopping argument given in the proof of Theorem 4.2.12(2).

4.3 Stochastic integrals based on L´evy processes In this section our aim is to examine various stochastic integrals for which the integrator is a L´evy process. 4.3.1 Brownian stochastic integrals In this case we take E = {0} and we write P2 (T, {0}) = P2 (T ), so that this space mappings F : [0, T ] ×  → R for which   comprises all predictable T P 0 |F(t)|2 dt < ∞ = 1. For our martingale-valued measure M we take any of the components (B 1 , B m ) of an m-dimensional standard Brownian motion B = (B(t), t ≥ 0). For most of the applications in which we will be interested, we will want to consider integrals of the type B2, . . . ,



Y (t) = i

0

t

F ji (s)d B j (s)

for 1 ≤ i ≤ d, 0 ≤ t ≤ T , where F = (F ji ) is a d × m matrix with entries in P2 (T ). This stochastic integral generates an Rd -valued process Y = (Y (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) with components (Y 1 , Y 2 , . . . , Y d ), and Y is clearly continuous at each 0 ≤ t ≤ T by Theorem 4.2.14. Furthermore, if G = (G(t), t ≥ 0) is an Rd -valued predictable process with each G(t) ∈ L 1 [0, T ] then Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) is adapted and has continuous sample paths, where for each 1 ≤ i ≤ d





t

Z i (t) = 0

F ji (s)d B j (s) +

t

G i (s)ds

(4.3)

0

(see e.g.  t Royden [266], p. 105, for a proof of the almost-sure continuity of t → 0 G i (s)(ω)ds, where ω ∈  ). In the next section we will meet the following situation. Let (Pn , n ∈ N) be a sequence of partitions of [0, T ] of the form

  (n) (n) Pn = 0 = t0(n) < t1(n) < · · · < tm(n) < tm(n)+1 =T

206

Stochastic integration

and suppose that limn→∞ δ(Pn ) = 0, where the mesh

δ(Pn ) =

   (n)  max t (n) − t j . j+1

0≤ j≤m(n)

Let (F(t), t ≥ 0) be a left-continuous adapted process and define a sequence of simple processes (Fn , n ∈ N) by writing

Fn (t) =

m(n) 

F(t (n) j )χ(t (n) ,t (n) ] (t) j

j=0

j+1

for each n ∈ N, 0 ≤ t ≤ T . Lemma 4.3.1 Fn → F in P2 (T ) as n → ∞. Proof This is left as an exercise for the reader. It follows by Lemma 4.3.1 via Exercise 4.2.10 that Iˆt (Fn ) → Iˆt (F) in probability as n → ∞, for each 0 ≤ t ≤ T . 4.3.2 Poisson stochastic integrals In this section we will take E = Bˆ − {0}. Let N be a Poisson random measure on R+ × (Rd − {0}) with intensity measure ν. We will find it convenient to assume that ν is a L´evy measure. Now take M to be the associated compensated Poisson random measure N˜ . In this case, P2 (T, E) is  the space of all predictable mappings F : [0, T ] × E ×  → R for which  T  2 P 0 E |F(t, x)| ν(d x)dt < ∞ = 1. Let H be a vector with components (H 1 , H 2 , . . . , H d ) taking values in P2 (T, E); then we may construct an Rd -valued process Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) with components (Z 1 , Z 2 , . . . , Z d ) where each



T



Z i (T ) = 0

|x| 0, n ∈ N,

  P 

T



0

≤

F(t, x) N˜ (dt, d x) − E

δ +P 2



T

0

T

 An

    ˜ F(t, x) N (dt, d x) > 

 |F(t, x)|2 ν(d x)dt > δ ,



0



E−An

from which the required result follows immediately. (2) Define a sequence (n , n ∈ N) that decreases monotonically to zero, with 1 = 1 and, for n ≥ 2,





T



n = sup y ≥ 0,

−n



E(|F(t, x)| ) ν(d x)dt ≤ 8 2

0

.

0 0. The left-hand side of this inequality is established in Rosi´nski and Woyczy´nski [265] and the right-hand side in Gin´e and Marcus [119].

4.3.5 Wiener–L´evy integrals, moving averages and the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process In this section we study stochastic integrals with sure integrands. These have a number of important applications, as we shall see. Let X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) be a L´evy process taking values in Rd and let f ∈ L 2 (R+ ); then we can consider the Wiener–L´evy integral Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) where each



t

Y (t) =

f (s)d X (s).

(4.7)

0

These integrals are defined by the same procedure as that used above for random integrands. The terminology ‘Wiener–L´evy integral’ recognises that we are generalising Wiener integrals, which are obtained in (4.7) when X is a standard Brownian motion B = (B(t), t ≥ 0). In this latter case, we have the following useful result.    t Lemma 4.3.11 For each t ≥ 0, we have Y (t) ∼ N 0, 0 | f (s)|2 ds . Proof Employing our usual sequence of partitions, we have



t

f (s)dB(s) = L − lim 2

0

n→∞

m(n) 

      (n) B t (n) , f t (n) j j+1 − B t j

j=0

so that each Y (t) is the L 2 -limit of a sequence of Gaussians and thus is itself Gaussian. The expressions for the mean and variance then follow immediately, from arguments similar to those that established Theorem 4.2.3(2). We now return to the general case (4.7). We write each X (t) = M(t)+ A(t), where M is a martingale and A has finite variation, and recall the precise form

214

Stochastic integration

of these from the L´evy–Itˆo decomposition. Our first observation is that the process Y has independent increments. Lemma 4.3.12 For each 0 ≤ s < t < ∞, Y (t) − Y (s) is independent of Fs . Proof Utilising the partitions of [s, t] from Lemma 4.3.11 we obtain



t

Y (t) − Y (s) =

f (u)d X (u) s

= lim

n→∞

m(n) 

      (n) M t − M t (n) f t (n) j j j+1

j=0

+ lim

m(n) 

n→∞

      (n) A t − A t (n) , f t (n) j j j+1

j=0

where the first limit is taken in the L 2 -sense and the second in the pathwise sense. In both cases, each term in the summand is adapted to the σ -algebra σ {X (v) − X (u); s ≤ u < v ≤ t}, which is independent of Fs , and the result follows. From now on we assume that f ∈ L 2 (R) ∩ L 1 (R) so that, for each t ≥ 0, the shifted function s → f (s − t) is also in L 2 (R) ∩ L 1 (R). We want to make sense of the moving-average process Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) given by



Z (t) =

∞ −∞

f (s − t)d X (s)

for all t ≥ 0, where the integral is defined by taking (X (t), t < 0) to be an independent copy of (−X (t), t > 0).1 Assumption  4.3.13 For the remainder of this subsection, we will impose the condition |x|>1 |x|ν(d x) < ∞ on the L´evy measure ν of X . Exercise 4.3.14 Show that for each t ≥ 0, the following exist:



∞ −∞



∞ −∞



f (s − t)d M(s) = L − lim

T

2

T →∞

f (s − t)d A(s) = L − lim

−T



T

1

T →∞

f (s − t)d M(s),

−T

f (s − t)d A(s).

Exercise 4.3.15 Let f ∈ L 2 (R)  ∩ L 1 (R) and consider the Wiener– t L´evy integral defined by Y (t) = 0 f (s)d X (s) for each t ≥ 0. Show that 1 If you want (X (t), t ∈ R) to be c`adl`ag, when t < 0 take X (t) to be an independent copy of

−X (−t−).

4.3 Stochastic integrals based on L´evy processes

215

Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) is stochastically continuous. (Hint: Use

  P 

     t   c  f (s)d X (s) > c ≤ P  f (s)d M(s) > 2 0    t   c   f (s)d A(s) > +P  2 0

t

0

for each c ≥ 0, and then apply the appropriate Chebyshev–Markov inequality to each term.) Recall that a stochastic process C = (C(t), t ≥ 0) is strictly stationary if, for each n ∈ N, 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn < ∞, h > 0, we have d

(C(t1 + h), C(t2 + h), . . . , C(tn + h)) = (C(t1 ), C(t2 ), . . . , C(tn )). Theorem 4.3.16 The moving-average process Z = (Z (t), t ≥ 0) is strictly stationary. Proof Let t ≥ 0 and fix h > 0, then



Z (t + h) =

∞

−∞

= lim lim

T →∞ n→∞ (n)



f (s − t − h)d X (s) = m(n) 

∞

−∞

f (s − t)d X (s + h)

      (n) (n) f s (n) − t X s + h − X s + h , j j j+1

j=0

(n)

(n)

where {−T = s0 < s1 < · · · < sm(n)+1 = T } is a sequence of partitions of each [−T, T ] and limits are taken in the L 2 (respectively, L 1 ) sense for the martingale (respectively, finite-variation) parts of X . Since convergence in L p (for p ≥ 1) implies convergence in distribution and X has stationary increments, we find that for each u ∈ Rd

E(e

i(u,Z (t+h))

   m(n)    (n) ) = lim lim E exp i u, f sj − t T →∞ n→∞

j=0

     (n) (n) × X s j+1 + h − X s j + h

   m(n)    (n) f sj − t = lim lim E exp i u, T →∞ n→∞

= E(ei(u,Z (t)) ), d

so that Z (t + h) = Z (t).

j=0

     (n) × X s j+1 − X s (n) j

216

Stochastic integration

In the general case, let 0 ≤ t1 < t2 < · · · < tn and u j ∈ Rd , 1 ≤ j ≤ n. Arguing as above, we then find that



!

E exp

n  j=1

" (u j , Z (t j + h)) !

= E exp

 u j,

= E exp

n  

−∞

j=1

! n  

∞

 u j,

j=1

∞ −∞

" f (s − t j − h)d X (s) " f (s − t j )d X (s)

" ! n  (u j , Z (t j )) , = E exp

j=1

from which the required result follows. ∞ Note In the case where X is α-stable (0 < α ≤ 2) and −∞ | f (s)|α ds < ∞, then Z is itself α-stable; see Samorodnitsky and Taqqu [271], p. 138, for details. The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process is an important special case of the moving-average process. To obtain this, we fix λ > 0 and take f (s) = eλs χ(−∞,0] (s) for each s ≤ 0. Then we have, for each t ≥ 0,



t

Z (t) =



−λ(t−s)

0

−λ(t−s)

d X (s) = e −∞ −∞  t = e−λt Z (0) + e−λ(t−s) d X (s). e

 d X (s) +

t

e−λ(t−s) d X (s)

0

(4.8)

0

The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process has interesting applications to finance and to the physics of Brownian motion, and we will return to these in later chapters. We now examine a remarkable connection with self-decomposable random variables. We write Z = Z (0) so that, for each t > 0,

 Z=

0 −∞

eλs d X (s) =



−t

−∞

eλs d X (s) +



0

−t

eλs d X (s),

and we observe that these two stochastic integrals are independent by Lemma 4.3.12. Now since X has stationary increments, we can argue as in the proof of

4.3 Stochastic integrals based on L´evy processes

Theorem 4.3.16 to show that



−t

−∞

λs

e d X (s) = e

−λt

= e−λt d



0

−∞ 0



−∞

217

eλs d X (s − t) eλs d X (s)

= e−λt Z .

d

Hence we have that Z = Z 1 + Z 2 , where Z 1 and Z 2 are independent and Z 2 = e−λt Z . It follows that Y is self-decomposable (see Subsection 1.2.5). This result has a remarkable converse, namely that given any self-decomposable random variable Z there exists a L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0) such that



Z=

0 −∞

e−s d X (s).

This result is due to Wolfe [306] in one dimension and to Jurek and Vervaat [162] in the many- (including infinite-) dimensional case (see also Jurek and Mason [161], pp. 116–44). When it is used to generate a self-decomposable random variable in this way, the L´evy process X is often called a backgrounddriving L´evy process, or BDLP for short. Note Our study of the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process has been somewhat crude as, through our assumption on the L´evy measure ν, we have imposed con0 vergence in L 1 on limt→∞ −t e−s d X (s). The following more subtle theorem can be found in Wolfe [306], Jurek and Vervaat [162] and Jacod [155]; see also Barndorff-Nielsen et al. [21] and Jeanblanc et al. [158]. Theorem 4.3.17 The following are equivalent: (1) Z is a self-decomposable  0 −s random variable; (2) Z = limt→∞ −t e d X (s) in distribution, for some c`adl`ag L´evy process X = (X (t), t ≥ 0);  (3) |x|>1 log(1 + |x|)ν( d x) < ∞, where ν is the L´evy measure of X; (4) Z can be represented as Z (0) in a stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process (Z (t), t ≥ 0). The term ‘Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process’ is also used to describe processes of the form Y = (Y (t), t ≥ 0) where, for each t ≥ 0,

Y (t) = e

−λt



y0 +

t

e−λ(t−s) d X (s),

(4.9)

0

where y0 ∈ Rd is fixed. Indeed, these were the first such processes to be studied historically, in the case where X is a standard Brownian motion (see Chapter 6

218

Stochastic integration

for more details). Note that such processes cannot be stationary, as illustrated by the following exercise. Exercise 4.3.18 If X is a standard Brownian motion show that each Y (t) is Gaussian with mean e−λt y0 and variance (1/2λ)(1 − e−2λt I ). The final topic in this section is the integrated Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process I Z = (I Z (t), t ≥ 0), defined as



t

I Z (t) =

Z (u)du. 0

Clearly I Z has continuous sample paths. We derive an interesting relation due to Barndorff-Nielsen [28]. Note that the use of Fubini’s theorem below to interchange integrals is certainly justified when X is of finite variation. Integrating (4.8) yields, for each t ≥ 0,

I Z (t) = = = =

 t u 1 −λt e−λ(u−s) d X (s)du (1 − e )Z (0) + λ 0 0  t t 1 (1 − e−λt )Z (0) + e−λ(u−s) dud X (s) λ 0  ts 1 1 (1 − e−λ(t−s) )d X (s) (1 − e−λt )Z (0) + λ λ 0  1 Z (0) − Z (t) + X (t) . λ

This result expresses the precise mechanism for the cancellation of jumps in the sample paths of Z and X to yield sample-path continuity for I Z . 4.4 Itˆo’s formula In this section we will establish the rightly celebrated Itˆo formulae for sufficiently smooth functions of stochastic integrals. Some writers refer to this acclaimed result as Itˆo’s lemma, but this author takes the point of view that the result is far more important than many others in mathematics that bear the title ‘theorem’. As in drinking a fine wine, we will proceed slowly in gradual stages to bring out the full beauty of the result. 4.4.1 Itˆo’s formula for Brownian integrals Let M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) be a Brownian integral of the form



t

M (t) = i

0

F ji (s)dB j (s)

4.4 Itˆo’s formula

219

for 1 ≤ i ≤ d, where F = (F ji ) is a d × m matrix taking values in P2 (T ) and B = (B 1 , . . . , B m ) is a standard Brownian motion in Rm . Our goal is to analyse the structure of ( f (M(t)), t ≥ 0), where f ∈ C 2 (Rd ). We begin with a result of fundamental importance. Here we meet in disguise the notion of ‘quadratic variation’, which controls many of the algebraic properties of stochastic integrals. Let (Pn , n ∈ N) be a sequence of partitions of the form

  (n) (n) Pn = 0 = t0(n) < t1(n) < · · · < tm(n) < tm(n)+1 =T , and suppose that limn→∞ δ(Pn ) = 0, where the mesh δ(Pn ) is given by (n) (n)  max0≤ j≤m(n) t j+1 − t j . Lemma 4.4.1 If Wkl ∈ H2 (T ) for each 1 ≤ k, l ≤ m then

L2 − lim

n→∞

=

j=0

m   k=1

          k (n) k (n) l (n) l (n) B t − B t B t − B tj Wkl t (n) j j j+1 j+1

n 

T

Wkk (s)ds. 0


(n)  j Proof To simplify the notation we will suppress n, write each Wkl t j as Wkl     (n) (n) (n) (n) and t j = t j+1 − t j . and introduce B kj = B k t j+1 − B k t j Now since B k and B l are independent Brownian motions, we find that

! E



j

Wkl ( B kj )( B lj ) −

j

j

! = E



 j

j

Wkk ( B kj )2 −

k

 j

"2  j Wkk t j  "2  j Wkk t j 

k

    j  i E Wkk Wkk ( Bik )2 − ti ( B kj )2 − t j . = i, j,k

As in the proof of Lemma 4.2.2, we can split the sum in the last term into three cases: i < j; j > i; i = j. By use of (M2) and independent increments we see that the first two vanish. We then use the fact that each B kj ∼ N (0, t j ),

220

Stochastic integration

which implies E(( B kj )4 ) = 3( t j )2 , to obtain

    j  i E Wkk Wkk ( Bik )2 − ti ( B kj )2 − t j i, j,k

=

  j  2  E (Wkk )2 ( B kj )2 − t j j,k

=

 j,k

=



 2  j E((Wkk )2 ) E ( B kj )2 − t j

by (M2)

  j E((Wkk )2 ) E ( B kj )4 − 2( B kj )2 t j + ( t j )2

j,k

=2



j

E((Wkk )2 ) ( t j )2

j,k

→0

as n → ∞,

and the required result follows. Corollary 4.4.2 Let B be a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion; then

L2 − lim

n→∞

n   
(n) 2
− B tj B t (n) = T. j+1 j=0

Proof Immediate from the above. Now let M be a Brownian integral with drift of the form





t

M (t) = i

0

F ji (s)dB j (s)

+

t

G i (s)ds,

(4.10)

0

where each F ji , (G i )1/2 ∈ P2 (t) for all t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ d, 1 ≤ j ≤ m. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ j, we introduce the quadratic variation process, denoted as ([M i , M j ](t), t ≥ 0), by

[M , M ](t) = i

j

m   k=1

t 0

j

Fki (s)Fk (s)ds.

We will explore quadratic variation in greater depth as this chapter unfolds. Now let f ∈ C 2 (Rd ) and consider the process ( f (M(t)), t ≥ 0). The chain rule from elementary calculus leads us to expect that f (M(t)) will again have a stochastic differential of the form

d f (M(t)) = ∂i f (M(t)) d M i (t). In fact, Itˆo showed that d f (M(t)) really is a stochastic differential but that in this case the chain rule takes a modified form. Additional second-order terms

4.4 Itˆo’s formula

221

appear and these are described by the quadratic variation. More precisely we have the following. Theorem 4.4.3 (Itˆo’s theorem 1) If M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) is a Brownian integral with drift of the form (4.10), then for all f ∈ C 2 (Rd ), t ≥ 0, with probability 1 we have

f (M(t)) − f (M(0))   t 1 t i ∂i f (M(s)) dM (s) + ∂i ∂ j f (M(s)) d[M i , M j ](s). = 2 0 0 Proof We follow closely the argument given in Kunita [182], pp. 64–5. We begin by assuming that M(t), F ji (t) and G i (t) are bounded random variables for all t ≥ 0. Let (Pn , n ∈ N) be a sequence of partitions of [0, t] as above. By Taylor’s theorem we have, for each such partition (where we again suppress the index n),

f (M(t)) − f (M(0)) =

m 

f (M(tk+1 )) − f (M(tk )) = J1 (t) + 12 J2 (t)

k=0

where

J1 (t) =

m 

  ∂i f (M(tk )) M i (tk+1 ) − M i (tk ) ,

k=0

J2 (t) =

m 

   ∂i ∂ j f (Nikj ) M i (tk+1 ) − M i (tk ) M j (tk+1 ) − M j (tk )

k=0

and where the Nikj are each F(tk+1 )-adapted Rd -valued random variables sat  isfying  Nikj − M(tk ) ≤ |M(tk+1 ) − M(tk )|. Now by Lemma 4.3.1 we find that, as n → ∞,



J1 (t) →

t

∂i f (M(s)) dM i (s) 0

in probability. We write J2 (t) = K 1 (t) + K 2 (t), where

K 1 (t) =

m 

   ∂i ∂ j f (M(tk )) M i (tk+1 ) − M i (tk ) M j (tk+1 ) − M j (tk ) ,

k=0

K 2 (t) =

m   k=0


  ∂i ∂ j f Nikj − ∂i ∂ j f (M(tk ))

   × M i (tk+1 ) − M i (tk ) M j (tk+1 ) − M j (tk ) .

222

Stochastic integration

Then by a slight extension of Lemma 4.4.1, we find that as n → ∞,



t

K 1 (t) →

∂i ∂ j f (M(s)) d[M i , M j ](s). 0

By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have

 
 |K 2 (t)| ≤ max ∂i ∂ j f Nikj − ∂i ∂ j f (M(tk )) 0≤k≤m (1/2' (1/2 ' m m    i  j 2 2 i j M (tk+1 )− M (tk ) (M (tk+1 )− M (tk ) × . k=0

k=0

Now as n → ∞, by continuity,

 
 max ∂i ∂ j f Nikj − ∂i ∂ j f (M(tk )) → 0

0≤k≤m

while m 


M i (tk+1 ) − M i (tk )

2

→ [M i , M i ](t)

k=0

in L 2 . Hence, by Proposition 1.1.9 we have K 2 (t) → 0 in probability. To establish the general result, we introduce the sequence of stopping times (T (n), n ∈ N) defined by

T (n) = inf t ≥ 0; max{M i (t), G i (t), F ji (t);

 1 ≤ i ≤ d, 1 ≤ j ≤ m} > n ∧ n

so that limn→∞ T (n) = ∞ (a.s.). Then the argument given above applies to each (M(t ∧ T (n)), t ≥ 0) and the required result follows by the continuity of f, when we take limits. Now let C 1,2 (R+ , Rd ) denote the class of mappings from R+ × Rd to R that are continuously differentiable with respect to the first variable and twice continuously differentiable with respect to the second. Corollary 4.4.4 If M = (M(t), t ≥ 0) is a Brownian integral with drift of the form (4.10), then for all f ∈ C 1,2 (R+ , Rd ), t ≥ 0, with probability 1 we have

 t ∂f ∂f (s,M(s)) ds+ f (t, M(t))− f(0,M(0))= (s,M(s)) dM i (s) 0 ∂s 0 ∂ xi  1 t ∂2 f (s, M(s)) d[M i , M j ](s). + 2 0 ∂ xi ∂ x j 

t

4.4 Itˆo’s formula

223

Proof Using the same notation as in the previous theorem, we write

f (t, M(t)) − f (0, M(0)) =

m  [ f (tk+1 , M(tk+1 )) − f (tk , M(tk+1 ))] k=0

+

m  [ f (tk , M(tk+1 )) − f (tk , M(tk ))]. k=0

By the mean value theorem, we can find tk < sk < tk+1 , for each 0 ≤ k ≤ m − 1, such that m  [ f (tk+1 , M(tk+1 )) − f (tk , M(tk+1 ))] k=0

=

m  ∂f k=0



t

→ 0

∂s

(sk , M(tk+1 )) (tk+1 − tk )

∂f (s, M(s)) ds ∂s

as n → ∞.

The remaining terms are treated as in Theorem 4.4.3.

4.4.2 Itˆo’s formula for L´evy-type stochastic integrals We begin by considering Poisson stochastic integrals of the form

 t

W (t) = W (0) + i

K i (s, x)N (ds, d x)

i

0

(4.11)

A

for 1 ≤ i ≤ d, where t ≥ 0, A is bounded below and each K i is predictable. Itˆo’s formula for such processes takes a particularly simple form. Lemma 4.4.5 If W is a Poisson stochastic integral of the form (4.11), then for each f ∈ C(Rd ), and for each t ≥ 0, with probability 1 we have

f (W (t)) − f (W (0))

 t =

[ f (W (s−) + K (s, x)) − f (W (s−))]N (ds, d x). 0

A

 Proof Let Y (t) = A x N (dt, d x) and recall that the jump times for Y are A ; defined recursively as T0A = 0 and, for each n ∈ N, TnA = inf{t > Tn−1

224

Stochastic integration

Y (t) ∈ A}. We then find that

f ((W (t)) − f (W (0))  = f (W (s)) − f (W (s−)) =

0≤s≤t ∞ 

A f (W (t ∧ TnA )) − f (W (t ∧ Tn−1 ))

n=1

=

∞  



f (W (t ∧ TnA −))+ K(t ∧TnA , Y(t ∧TnA )) − f (t ∧W (TnA −))

n=1

 t [ f (W (s−) + K (s, x)) − f (W (s−))]N (ds, d x).

= 0

A

Now consider a L´evy-type stochastic integral of the form

 t Y i (t) = Y i (0) + Yci (t) +

K i (s, x)N (ds, d x) 0

(4.12)

A

where

 Yci (t) =



t

t

G i (s)ds + 0

0

F ji (s)d B j (s)

for each t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ d. In view of Theorem 4.2.14, the notation Yc used to denote the continuous part of Y is not unreasonable. We then obtain the following Itˆo formula. Lemma 4.4.6 If Y is a L´evy-type stochastic integral of the form (4.12), then, for each f ∈ C 2 (Rd ), t ≥ 0, with probability 1 we have

f (Y (t)) − f (Y (0))  t  1 t i ∂i f (Y (s−)) dYc (s) + ∂i ∂ j f (Y (s−)) d[Yci , Ycj ](s) = 2 0 0  t + [ f (Y (s−) + K (s, x)) − f (Y (s−))]N (ds, d x). 0

A

4.4 Itˆo’s formula

225

Proof Using the stopping times from the previous lemma, we find that

f (Y (t)) − f (Y (0)) =

∞  



 A f Y t ∧ T j+1 − f Y t ∧ T jA j=0

∞   



A f Y t ∧ T j+1 − − f Y (t ∧ T jA = j=0

+

∞  



 A A f Y t ∧ T j+1 − f Y t ∧ T j+1 − . j=0

A Now using the interlacing structure, we observe that for each T jA < t < T j+1 we have

Y (t) = Y (T jA −) + Yc (t) − Yc (T jA ), and the result then follows by applying Theorem 4.4.3 within the first sum and Lemma 4.4.5 within the second. Now we are ready to prove Itˆo’s formula for general L´evy-type stochastic integrals, so let Y be such a process with stochastic differential

 dY (t) = G(t) dt + F(t) d B(t) + H (t, x) N˜ (dt, d x) |x|